Where Scotland failed, could New Hampshire succeed?

[Keith and stuff]

Where Scotland failed, could New Hampshire succeed?
Jason Sorens, a visiting professor at Dartmouth College and co-founder of the Free State Project, is author of Secessionism: Identity, Interest, and Strategy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/22/where-scotland-failed-could-new-hampshire-succeed/


...a majority of Scots voted against independence from the United Kingdom. Their desire for self-determination, though, is easy to understand: The same impulse motivates present-day demands for federalism and state autonomy in the United States. Over the past decade, for instance, the Free State Project (https://freestateproject.org/) has been drawing libertarians to the relatively libertarian-friendly state of New Hampshire to pursue smaller government. Could New Hampshire or another state (one in four Americans want their state to secede, according to a poll last week) ever hold its own vote on independence?

From the perspective of the libertarians, there are good reasons for frustration with the federal government. The United States is a very large country and, as Francis Fukuyama noted in “America in Decay,” a recent essay for Foreign Affairs magazine, the nation’s massive size and clunky institutions have made the country less and less governable. Bureaucratic “kludge” continues to grow. The number of pages in the federal register, one indicator of regulatory burden, had grown to over 80,000 in 2013, a quadrupling over the 1970 figure. The United States’ economic freedom ranking in the world has fallen from second in 2000 to nineteenth in 2011. Its government now enjoys the twin ignominies of incarcerating and shooting dead more of its own citizens per capita than any other industrialized country, by far, even though its violent crime rate is not much above average.

Political scientists have found that more populous countries are more decentralized, because government becomes less and less effective over larger populations. Spain, Britain, Belgium, Italy and Canada have all decentralized over the past 50 years. But the United States has gone in the opposite direction. In 1913, according to Census Bureau data, local governments raised 56 percent of all taxes in the United States, and state governments another 12 percent. Today, those numbers have flipped: The federal government raises more than 55 percent of all taxes, and local governments account for only 15 percent.

A more workable country would let state and local governments go their own way on more policies, but a more just country would also be based firmly on the principle of free association. Free association is the original American way. The country was founded on an act of secession.

Consider New Hampshire’s possible future. While the Free State Project does not endorse independence for New Hampshire – or any specific legislation – its “Statement of Intent” endorses government limited strictly to protecting people’s rights. Free Staters generally support more autonomy for the state. If the federal government won’t let New Hampshire opt out of the vast federal Leviathan, then what? New Hampshire joined the union on condition that it remain a fully sovereign state free to break the tie with the United States if that link were no longer in its interest. Article 7 of the New Hampshire Constitution declares that “the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.” Banning secession would break this original agreement.

Continue reading
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/22/where-scotland-failed-could-new-hampshire-succeed/

[mad cow]

From a link in your link:
Secession support is weakest in New England than in any other region of the USA.
http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/

[William Tell]

From a link in your link:
Secession support is weakest in New England than in any other region of the USA.
http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/
Yeah, I think more of us Southerners support secession, whether of, or from the Yankees makes little difference.:)
New Hampshire GOP just nominated Scott Brown, hardly a good sign for self determination. I hope they secede and thrive, though, I just don't see it happening:(

[Ronin Truth]

As with Scotland, the outcome is dependent (as always) on who counts the votes.

[TheTexan]

As with Scotland, the outcome is dependent (as always) on who counts the votes.

The trick is to become the ones who count the vote. To do this though you have to vote really hard for a long time, without getting your bones broken in the process. (Voting is serious business)

If you just vote hard enough, anything is possible!

[TheCount]

No.

[Ronin Truth]

The trick is to become the ones who count the vote. To do this though you have to vote really hard for a long time, without getting your bones broken in the process. (Voting is serious business)

If you just vote hard enough, anything is possible! Vote early and often, especially if you're dead.;)

[cindy25]

probably not NH, but within 10 years a state will . maybe TX, maybe Alaska or Hawaii. Quebec will probably leave Canada first.

[Anti Federalist]

probably not NH, but within 10 years a state will . maybe TX, maybe Alaska or Hawaii. Quebec will probably leave Canada first.
That would have to happen before any New England states secede.

[Anti Federalist]

First, it should be acknowledged that intramural conflict has been in character for Americans since the earliest settlements, when Puritan New England faced off against Royalist Virginia in the English Civil War. More than a century later, the Revolutionary War was barely won when the states, never quite friendly, were at each other’s throats, and the infant nation came close to being strangled in its crib.

It was in part to avoid the danger that the colonies would break into competing regional confederacies that the founders plotted to hold the Constitutional Convention of 1787. But even when the new Constitution made secession illegal, the impulse to break up stayed strong. Serious state and regional threats of secession flared up in 1799, 1814 and 1828. Fifteen years before 11 Southern states did secede in 1860, sparking the Civil War, William Lloyd Garrison called for the North to secede under the banner of “No Union With Slaveholders.”

I must have missed that part.

Somebody please point out where the 1787 constitution makes secession illegal?

[mad cow]

I must have missed that part.

Somebody please point out where the 1787 constitution makes secession illegal?

Yeah,I must have missed it too.

Article,Section,Clause?

[TheTexan]

I must have missed that part.

Somebody please point out where the 1787 constitution makes secession illegal?

That depends on your interpretation of the Constitution. Most people seem to accept the 1861 interpretation.


I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

But to more specifically address your question:


No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation

By seceding, a state essentially is entering into an alliance with itself, therefore the constitution forbids it. Of course, there is a chicken or the egg problem here, but again -- that was resolved in 1865.

[Anti Federalist]

By seceding, a state essentially is entering into an alliance with itself, therefore the constitution forbids it. Of course, there is a chicken or the egg problem here, but again -- that was resolved in 1865.

So by seceding, the new nation is no longer subject to the 1787 constitution, and thus rendered moot.

If you are suggesting war against a people peaceably leaving, do you really want to see millions of people killed for exercising their right of self determination?

[TheTexan]

So by seceding, the new nation is no longer subject to the 1787 constitution, and thus rendered moot.

If you are suggesting war against a people peaceably leaving, do you really want to see millions of people killed for exercising their right of self determination?

A wise man once said it best:


"Secession would destroy the only democracy in existence and prove for all time - to both future Americans and the world - that a government of the people could not survive."

If our great democracy, for the people, and by the people, is to survive, our country must sometimes attack its people. For democracy. Or for its people. One of the two. Or maybe its for the country. Not sure.

[TheTexan]

Article IV, Section 4, states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." This clause was cited by President Lincoln to justify a war to prevent secession:

"[I]f a State may lawfully go out of the Union, having done so, it may also discard the republican form of government; so that to prevent its going out, is an indispensable means, to the end, of maintaining the guaranty mentioned; and when an end is lawful and obligatory, the indispensable means to it, are also lawful, and obligatory."

http://blog.jimostrowski.com/articles/secession.html


Apparently this was Lincoln's Constitutional basis for the war. There's a few (a lot, actually) holes with his reasoning here, and he actually broke about 10 different clauses of the Constitution just by invading the south, but hey, he freed the slaves, so it's ok.

[mad cow]

By seceding, a state essentially is entering into an alliance with itself
I believe that it takes at least two to tango.


alliance |əˈlīəns| noun
a union or association formed for mutual benefit, esp. between countries or organizations: a defensive alliance between Australia and New Zealand | divisions within the alliance.
• a relationship based on an affinity in interests, nature, or qualities: an alliance between medicine and morality.
• a state of being joined or associated: his party is in alliance with the Greens.
ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French aliance, from aliere ‘to ally’ (see ally1) .

That is stretching Article One,Section Ten pretty thin.


If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”)

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist in 1892,over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified.
It is hard to believe that a Supreme Court Justice would mention it in a decision.


If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.
Yep,the old might makes right,hard to argue with that one.Except that it is painfully obvious that the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc dissolved their union easier and with less bloodshed than we will ever dissolve ours.

[Demigod]

Might makes right.

Until there is enough people that would die for independence there will be none,whether it is obtained by voting or weapons.The Scots simply chose pensions and government jobs instead of independence.You can't blame the English for voter fraud when you can't even inspire more than 50% of your people that independence is better.Going into that vote with anything less than 60-70% support is shameful.

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8f/Scotched-in-scotland-poster.jpg/220px-Scotched-in-scotland-poster.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Hsj0dqZGY&html5=1)http://kwout.com/cutout/c/ar/2f/ehr_bor.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Hsj0dqZGY&html5=1)

The Three Stooges - Scotched in Scotland - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Hsj0dqZGY&html5=1)

[IDefendThePlatform]

If you just vote hard enough, anything is possible!

You'll appreciate this:
Vote Harder: The Barack Obama Story - http://c4ss.org/content/20907

[ChristianAnarchist]

Keith, if NH succeeds, I'll be moving up there post-haste...

[Acala]

I would like to see Scotland and Quebec secede peacefully. Then the Federal government might be less likely to respond to a state leaving the union with its usual knee-jerk reaction of killing everybody.

[donnay]

Vote early and often, especially if you're dead.;)

What are you kidding, dead people vote!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-uVhhIlPk0

[Peace&Freedom]

Might makes right.

Until there is enough people that would die for independence there will be none,whether it is obtained by voting or weapons.The Scots simply chose pensions and government jobs instead of independence.You can't blame the English for voter fraud when you can't even inspire more than 50% of your people that independence is better.Going into that vote with anything less than 60-70% support is shameful.

Support for independence by citizens of the original American colonies was as low as 20% at the time of the Revolution, and never higher than 40%. What is needed are supporters who were, and are "ready to to take up arms" and risk their careers, assets and reputation ("lives, fortunes and sacred honor") to see freedom done. It also requires a fortunate set of "perfect storm" circumstances---in the case of the War, an ocean separating Britain from the colonies, French assistance, the British tiring of fighting off the "mountain people" and other "religious nuts with guns" (PJ O'Rouke's great term) who started this country, and Parliament pulling the plug on funding the war in 1782.

[Keith and stuff]

From a link in your link:
Secession support is weakest in New England than in any other region of the USA.
http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/

It was really strong in VT when Bush was President. Now that Obama is President, it is weak. Go figure :toady:

[Keith and stuff]

I must have missed that part.

Somebody please point out where the 1787 constitution makes secession illegal?

Some random person's comment means nothing. New Hampshire was the first state to leave England. It was the state that when it joined the union, the US became official and has the right to revolution in the NH state Constitution.

[Keith and stuff]

Keith, if NH succeeds, I'll be moving up there post-haste...

In the WP article, Jason claims he doesn't think it makes sense for NH to succeed just yet. I did enjoy the article, though.

[jllundqu]

Anything East of the Mississippi is already doomed. New England is a wasteland waiting to happen once the SHTF. Maybe some of the southern states can sqeak by, but it's too crowding and too many free-shit-army zombies there.

No way... if any state is going to secede, it will be in the midwest like Texas, or possibly Alaska or Hawaii. I don't see any secession movements really happening though.

[TheTexan]

Anything East of the Mississippi is already doomed. New England is a wasteland waiting to happen once the SHTF. Maybe some of the southern states can sqeak by, but it's too crowding and too many free-shit-army zombies there.

No way... if any state is going to secede, it will be in the midwest like Texas, or possibly Alaska or Hawaii. I don't see any secession movements really happening though.

Texas would be the 14th largest economy in the world. It also has nukes.

I'm not sure if the 1861 interpretation of the Constitution with regard to secession, still holds true, when nukes are involved.

[Keith and stuff]

Anything East of the Mississippi is already doomed. New England is a wasteland waiting to happen once the SHTF. Maybe some of the southern states can sqeak by, but it's too crowding and too many free-shit-army zombies there.

That's a pretty bold statement. Northern New England are the #1, #2 and #3 states for locally grown food/farm stands/farmer's markets/co-ops. Northern New England is also the region that Ron Paul did much better in than any other in 2012. New England as a whole was Ron Paul 2nd best region. The Southwest would be worst hit because the water would run out. New England used to export ice to the South. That might happen again. Europeans have been living in NH since 1623 and doing fine at it. They got along before they started the Industrial Revolution (which was started in MA and NH). It started here because of the many rivers, since there is an unlimited supply of water, were used to create power. Even back in the 1700s, the best educated people in the US were in New England. That is still true today.

Percentage of total state population voting for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary or Republican Caucus, ranked highest to lowest (and the 2008 percentage):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?360037-Percentage-of-total-state-population-voting-for-Ron-Paul-compared
1. New Hampshire 4.3% (1.4%)
2. Vermont 2.4% (0.4%)
3. Montana 2% (1.7%)
4. South Carolina 1.7% (0.4%)
19. Texas 0.7% (0.3%)

Ron Paul Endorsements from US and state legislators
http://nhfreedom.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/ronpaulendorsements/
80 total endorsements. 33 or 41% from New Hampshire. 10 or 13% from Maine. VT and RI also had 2 so 59% of Ron Paul's legislative endorsements came from New England. The highest ranking legislator to endorse Ron Paul was Senator Rand Paul. Out of the 5 early states of IA, NH, SC, FL and NV, 80% of the endorsements came from NH legislators.

Ron Paul Support by Region as of 6/26/12
Dark red shows the most amount support for Ron Paul. Bright green shows the least amount of support for Ron Paul.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?691-Ron-Paul-Support-by-Region-final-chart
The strongest regions for Ron Paul are:
Northern New England 28% (VT, NH, ME) (dark red)
New England 22% (VT, NH, ME, MA, RI, CT) (orange)
Canadian Border 22% (AK, WA, ID, MT, ND, MN, WI, MI, NY, VT, NH, ME) (orange)
Pacific Northwest 20% (AK, WA, OR, ID) (orange)
Northeast 19% (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, PA, NJ) (orange)
Southeast 12% (VA, WV, KY, NC, SC, TN, AK, LA, MS, AL, GA, FL) (green)
Southwest 11% (NV, UT, CO, AZ, NM, TX, OK) (green)
Mexican Border 10% (CA, AZ, NM, TX) (green)
Gulf Coast 7% (TX, LA, MS, AL, FL) (green)
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5334/626chart.png

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t31.0-8/1909262_706908942685688_4084911346346722179_o.jpg

[jllundqu]

That's a pretty bold statement. Northern New England are the #1, #2 and #3 states for locally grown food/farm stands/farmer's markets/co-ops. Northern New England is also the region that Ron Paul did much better in than any other in 2012. New England as a whole was Ron Paul 2nd best region. The Southwest would be worst hit because the water would run out. New England used to export ice to the South. That might happen again. Europeans have been living in NH since 1623 and doing fine at it. They got along before they started the Industrial Revolution (which was started in MA and NH). It started here because of the many rivers, since there is an unlimited supply of water, were used to create power. Even back in the 1700s, the best educated people in the US were in New England. That is still true today.

Percentage of total state population voting for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary or Republican Caucus, ranked highest to lowest (and the 2008 percentage):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?360037-Percentage-of-total-state-population-voting-for-Ron-Paul-compared
1. New Hampshire 4.3% (1.4%)
2. Vermont 2.4% (0.4%)
3. Montana 2% (1.7%)
4. South Carolina 1.7% (0.4%)
19. Texas 0.7% (0.3%)

Ron Paul Endorsements from US and state legislators
http://nhfreedom.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/ronpaulendorsements/
80 total endorsements. 33 or 41% from New Hampshire. 10 or 13% from Maine. VT and RI also had 2 so 59% of Ron Paul's legislative endorsements came from New England. The highest ranking legislator to endorse Ron Paul was Senator Rand Paul. Out of the 5 early states of IA, NH, SC, FL and NV, 80% of the endorsements came from NH legislators.

Ron Paul Support by Region as of 6/26/12
Dark red shows the most amount support for Ron Paul. Bright green shows the least amount of support for Ron Paul.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?691-Ron-Paul-Support-by-Region-final-chart
The strongest regions for Ron Paul are:
Northern New England 28% (VT, NH, ME) (dark red)
New England 22% (VT, NH, ME, MA, RI, CT) (orange)
Canadian Border 22% (AK, WA, ID, MT, ND, MN, WI, MI, NY, VT, NH, ME) (orange)
Pacific Northwest 20% (AK, WA, OR, ID) (orange)
Northeast 19% (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, PA, NJ) (orange)
Southeast 12% (VA, WV, KY, NC, SC, TN, AK, LA, MS, AL, GA, FL) (green)
Southwest 11% (NV, UT, CO, AZ, NM, TX, OK) (green)
Mexican Border 10% (CA, AZ, NM, TX) (green)
Gulf Coast 7% (TX, LA, MS, AL, FL) (green)
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5334/626chart.png

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t31.0-8/1909262_706908942685688_4084911346346722179_o.jpg

That's all well and good, but you are still surrounded by zombies. The sheer population density, the vast majority of which are major city statists, makes it pointless to even consider in that region. Then you take into account the politics of the region, which again is overwhelmingly statist, and it's a lose/lose situation.

Again... NO THANKS. There are many good liberty minded people up there, but you are outnumbered 1million to one. I'll take my wide open spaces, guns, and farmland out here any day of the week before choosing New England.

I'll visit you in the summer though :)

[jllundqu]

Montana and Idaho... I have hopes for you.

[William Tell]

Anything East of the Mississippi is already doomed. New England is a wasteland waiting to happen once the SHTF. Maybe some of the southern states can sqeak by, but it's too crowding and too many free-shit-army zombies there.

No way... if any state is going to secede, it will be in the midwest like Texas, or possibly Alaska or Hawaii. I don't see any secession movements really happening though.

+Rep. Keith's love for the FSP has blinded him to the reality of secession politics. Texans in particular, and others in the South and West, are far more likely to support secession.

[William Tell]

Ted Cruz supporters are more likely to support secession than Scott Brown supporters.

[Keith and stuff]

That's all well and good, but you are still surrounded by zombies. The sheer population density, the vast majority of which are major city statists, makes it pointless to even consider in that region. Then you take into account the politics of the region, which again is overwhelmingly statist, and it's a lose/lose situation.

Again... NO THANKS. There are many good liberty minded people up there, but you are outnumbered 1million to one. I'll take my wide open spaces, guns, and farmland out here any day of the week before choosing New England.

I'll visit you in the summer though :)

Hardly anyone lives near me. I have acres and acres of woods in the back and acres and acres of woods in the front. There is also a river here. There are no major cities within hours. I am not sure what you are talking about. Actually, the one guy that has studied SHTF stuff the most suggests that the Cumberland Plateau of rural TN/KY is the best place in the Eastern US followed by Northern NH/ME (both in New England), if I am not mistaken. Check out Strategic Relocation by Joel Skousen.

What about machine guns? New England is tops in machine guns. It is also tops in gun manufacturing.

Machine guns by state, New Hampshire wins
http://nhfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/machine-guns-by-state-new-hampshire-wins/
Top 5 States:
1. NH 7.47
2. CT 6.13
3. MD 4.03
4. VA 3.69
5. ME 3.51

Bottom 5 States:
46. DE 0.62
47. RI 0.57
48. WA 0.55
49. NY 0.38
50. HI 0.31

TX and some of the Midwestern states:
37. KS 1.14
38. WI 1.12
39. NE 1.10
40. TX 1.10
41. IA 1.06

[William Tell]

That's a pretty bold statement. Northern New England are the #1, #2 and #3 states for locally grown food/farm stands/farmer's markets/co-ops. Northern New England is also the region that Ron Paul did much better in than any other in 2012. New England as a whole was Ron Paul 2nd best region. The Southwest would be worst hit because the water would run out. New England used to export ice to the South. That might happen again. Europeans have been living in NH since 1623 and doing fine at it. They got along before they started the Industrial Revolution (which was started in MA and NH). It started here because of the many rivers, since there is an unlimited supply of water, were used to create power. Even back in the 1700s, the best educated people in the US were in New England. That is still true today.


You mean a bunch of arrogant damn Yankees. The great minds of early America were largely located Virginia. New England forgot about States Rights and the Constitution by the 1860s.

[Southron]

NH, ME and VT should secede together.

[Anti Federalist]

Texans in particular, and others in the South and West, are far more likely to support secession.

Hogwash.

Ya'll love ya some police state in TX and the "Old Confederacy".

Copsucking and soldier sniffing all day long.

[Anti Federalist]

NH, ME and VT should secede together.

I hope and pray for the day.

Quebec secession would make this much more doable.

Consider: QE secession isolates the Canadian Maritimes.

NH - VT - ME tire of dicates from the fedgov on fishing and timber.

Secede and ally with with Canadian Maritimes who are even more pissed at the Ottawa government.

Form the "Atlantic Alliance" with ice free ports, hi tech, fisheries, oil, timber and coal along with stunning natural beauty for tourism.

Win.

[William Tell]

Hogwash.
Not at all.


Ya'll love ya some police state in TX and the "Old Confederacy".

Copsucking and soldier sniffing all day long.

It is a known fact that people down here are more likely to support secession, that is not a promise that liberty would come after secession. Y'all up there have not stopped the police state yet either.

[Anti Federalist]

It is a known fact that people down here are more likely to support secession, that is not a promise that liberty would come after secession. Y'all up there have not stopped the police state yet either.

No, sadly we have not.

I see this talk of secession in TX the same as I do in VT.

High when the Blue Team is in the White House.

Low when the Red Team is.

Trying my damnedest to get the idea out there that it does not matter, red or blue, yer still fucked.

I swear though, it is like trying to talk a battered woman into leaving her abuser.

[Keith and stuff]

I see this talk of secession in TX the same as I do in VT.

High when the Blue Team is in the White House.

Low when the Red Team is.

I swear though, it is like trying to talk a battered woman into leaving her abuser.

Yup. The whole red state (team) vs. blue state (team) nonsense is crazy. It's like the whole liberal vs. conservative argument. With the Nolan Chart we have moved on from the days of measuring politics on 1 straight line. It is time to move on past red vs. blue.

http://wmbriggs.com/pics/nolan_chart.png

New Hampshire is turning into a Gold state :toady: I agree with Jason Sorens that we don't need secession right now. I support getting our house in order. Then trying to negotiate with the federal government for more autonomy. I don't just support this for NH, but for all states. See where things go.
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10157252_791828924193689_1136010964438194307_n.png ?oh=afb8c565c74f2f0c8a4688ccad74ee8a&oe=54B72422

[Keith and stuff]

Hogwash.
Ya'll love ya some police state in TX and the "Old Confederacy".
.

There isn't finger printing to vote, drive or conceal carry in NH. There is in TX. All 10 fingers now. TN also requires finger prints to carry, even openly. I don't know about the other Southern states. Unfortunately, the police state is everywhere in the US :(

[Keith and stuff]

Y'all up there have not stopped the police state yet either.

True. Though NH has arguably done more to stop it than any other states. Whereas, Texas in some ways, has fallen deepest into the police state. Of course, as you said, the police state exists everywhere :(

[LibForestPaul]

Anything East of the Mississippi is already doomed. New England is a wasteland waiting to happen once the SHTF. Maybe some of the southern states can sqeak by, but it's too crowding and too many free-shit-army zombies there.

No way... if any state is going to secede, it will be in the midwest like Texas, or possibly Alaska or Hawaii. I don't see any secession movements really happening though.

Depends how much people suck cop and military cock. Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, never considered themselves Soviets. Think most people in most states love rah rah America. How else are they going to get their medical cost paid by someone else, their retirement paid by someone else, their guaranteed pension paid by someone else, their housing paid by someone else, their food paid by someone else...so until the money stops, they going to keep sucking cock.

[ZENemy]

The state that voted for Romney in the primaries over Ron Paul will succeed?

This country cannot even stand up and protest when we are told DIRECTLY to our faces we are being spied on by our government.

Nobody even batted an eye when congress voted to ARM Syrian rebels.

[Keith and stuff]

The state that voted for Romney in the primaries over Ron Paul will succeed?
Good point. Romney beat Ron Paul in every state, if you look at it like that. Maybe Lincoln was right :(