Socialism or Secession

[nate895]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYXwPY3XVq4

I liked this video by the Southern Avenger, and I sadly think it might just be right. This government is too big, too far away, and for too long that has been the case for any real change to come out of Washington, DC. The place where we can hope to get far is in Columbia, SC, Olympia, WA, or Concord, NH.

[ShowMeLiberty]

I also believe it may come to this. I can't imagine any realistic way our current system can be brought back under control of the people. Not in light of most recent events. Not in light of who our next president will be (either one - doesn't matter).

My biggest question about secession though is how can it be done without the full support of the governor and legislature of a state wanting to secede? I understand that only a small percentage of citizens can have a big impact on convincing the reluctant citizens that such a step is necessary, patriotic and beneficial. But the citizens alone can't make it actually happen. Can they? I mean realistically.

[nate895]

I also believe it may come to this. I can't imagine any realistic way our current system can be brought back under control of the people. Not in light of most recent events. Not in light of who our next president will be (either one - doesn't matter).

My biggest question about secession though is how can it be done without the full support of the governor and legislature of a state wanting to secede? I understand that only a small percentage of citizens can have a big impact on convincing the reluctant citizens that such a step is necessary, patriotic and beneficial. But the citizens alone can't make it actually happen. Can they? I mean realistically.

Depends on the state. At least the governor and secretary of state or just the legislature has to agree to hold a convention. The governor and secretary of state would have to violate the Constitution, but they could call an election for a convention on their own if they wanted to, since they have the ability to do so, whether or not it is constitutional.

The best thing to do would be to actually take over the state legislatures and governorships. We should have a whole region secede, that way it is virtually impossible for the Federal Government to simply rush in the FBI, Federal Marshals, or US Army and the state subdued by the end of the day. They wouldn't dare go to war with a whole region of the country.

[ShowMeLiberty]

Depends on the state. At least the governor and secretary of state or just the legislature has to agree to hold a convention. The governor and secretary of state would have to violate the Constitution, but they could call an election for a convention on their own if they wanted to, since they have the ability to do so, whether or not it is constitutional.

The best thing to do would be to actually take over the state legislatures and governorships. We should have a whole region secede, that way it is virtually impossible for the Federal Government to simply rush in the FBI, Federal Marshals, or US Army and the state subdued by the end of the day. They wouldn't dare go to war with a whole region of the country.

Oh, I believe they would dare. Lincoln dared - and won. Still, I agree that a region encompassing several states would stand a much better chance than just a single state or portion of a state.

I think we're several years out from any possible secession attempt, so it makes sense to elect people to state offices who are firm states' rights advocates. As much as possible anyway. The candidates we have to choose from are too often part of the problem.

[nate895]

Oh, I believe they would dare. Lincoln dared - and won. Still, I agree that a region encompassing several states would stand a much better chance than just a single state or portion of a state.

I think we're several years out from any possible secession attempt, so it makes sense to elect people to state offices who are firm states' rights advocates. As much as possible anyway. The candidates we have to choose from are too often part of the problem.

What we should do is "test the waters" in 2010 in several states. We should get a couple of well-funded gubernatorial campaigns going in the South and in the West to see how much of the vote share a secessionist party would get. We could then work on building up that base.

[silus]

How would the federal government allow this to happen?? They/we undermine entire nations to have our interests met...what chance does a single state have?

And I dont mean this to diffuse your attempts at all, I am just curious about the viability of secession legally (legal being a relative term).

[nate895]

How would the federal government allow this to happen?? They/we undermine entire nations to have our interests met...what chance does a single state have?

And I dont mean this to diffuse your attempts at all, I am just curious about the viability of secession legally (legal being a relative term).

If we would secede, the only two states that can viably go it alone are Hawaii and Alaska due to their separation from the continuous 48 states. The only way states on the mainland could secede and not be subdued within a couple of hours would be if a whole region seceded. The only place I think this is possible would be in the Southern states. I don't think any other region has the guts.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I suppose a bunch of states could get together and give the feds a choice... "We will secede on (insert date here). You can stop this secession by returning to a constitutionally limited government or you can stop us by force."

[nate895]

I suppose a bunch of states could get together and give the feds a choice... "We will secede on (insert date here). You can stop this secession by returning to a constitutionally limited government or you can stop us by force."

I'd say that if states wanted to warn the Feds, they should be ready with the ammunition should the Feds say no.

BTW, what you would be referring to would be a form of nullification, which ultimately leads to secession if the Feds refuse to repeal the law.

[Conservationist]

This government is too big, too far away, and for too long that has been the case for any real change to come out of Washington, DC. The place where we can hope to get far is in Columbia, SC, Olympia, WA, or Concord, NH.

There's no consensus in America anymore about what the goal of having a country is. Half the country thinks it's to empower the individual, the other half think it's to make sure every individual survives; no one seems to be watching the course we're charting.

Time to split up or unify through other means, like a good hefty war, such as taking on the Chinese or Russians (lol!).

[Poor Writer]

What we should do is "test the waters" in 2010 in several states.
Agreed. If there was a movement in Michigan, I would dedicate all my free time to help make it happen.



I think we're several years out from any possible secession attempt
I'm thinking along the lines of 5 to 7 years for an actual "attempt"


http://www.ticolumn.com


DAMNIT I got stuck on the 2nd page

[Defining Obscene]

They are not going to let you succeed... Are you kidding? They know that there are people like (us) out there, and there will be suits in the street before you can even organize. What do you think all these domestic military moves are? They'll call you terrorists, they'll use all their new "weapons" against you, and they'll clear the area real quick. I'm sorry, but thats the situation. The best way to kill socialism is to not participate.

[nate895]

They are not going to let you succeed... Are you kidding? They know that there are people like (us) out there, and there will be suits in the street before you can even organize. What do you think all these domestic military moves are? They'll call you terrorists, they'll use all their new "weapons" against you, and they'll clear the area real quick. I'm sorry, but thats the situation. The best way to kill socialism is to not participate.

No they won't. Even if so, it would be us calling their bluff. 20% of the American public is in support of the right of secession, 18.2% want to use it. The region with the highest percentage is the South, with 25%. They would be provoking unrest and total rebellion if they didn't limit their fight to the market of ideas, and possibly after we secede.

[youngbuck]

Pretty interesting stuff. Thanks for the vid.

[sailor]

What about ethnic based secession? While every secession attempt is highly unlikely for the foreseable future I think ethnic separations are a bit more likely.

The Portoricans, the Indians, the Mexicans, the Blacks, the Hawaiians , the Eskimos, the Cajun...

Ok obviously not the Cajun, the Eskimos or the Hawaiians.

But the Sioux actually formaly declared independence less than a year ago.

[Forefall]

This would never happen and is just merely a pipe dream. You're better off moving and letting the US die.

[Defining Obscene]

This would never happen and is just merely a pipe dream. You're better off moving and letting the US die.

My kinda guy. But, tell me you're not a zeitgeister...

[nate895]

This would never happen and is just merely a pipe dream. You're better off moving and letting the US die.

I'm sorry, but I love my home, and as I have already said, 18.2% of the public according to Zogby already wants to exercise the right of secession. The South is the highest percentage as far as that goes, around 25%, we would need to convince a lesser percentage of the population than trying to take over the Federal Government itself, or to leave the country and go for some other country.

[nate895]

What about ethnic based secession? While every secession attempt is highly unlikely for the foreseable future I think ethnic separations are a bit more likely.

The Portoricans, the Indians, the Mexicans, the Blacks, the Hawaiians , the Eskimos, the Cajun...

Ok obviously not the Cajun, the Eskimos or the Hawaiians.

But the Sioux actually formaly declared independence less than a year ago.

That wouldn't be possible. It wouldn't be secession, since only a political entity can secede, it would be revolution, and unlike a group of states seceding, the Federal government would have a populace willing to war over the issue.

[sailor]

Actualy technicaly it would be separatism.