Should Secession be an option?

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Shoot. If Texas was to Secede, it would probably be the Best thing for America.

After America was to Take back all the Military and Financial Support that it provides Texas on a Yearly basis, it would go a long way to help balance our Deficit. Thinking of all the Texans who would relinquish their Claim of Federal Benefits by denouncing their Citizenship would make Medicare Solvent for 60 years.

And that's assuming if Texas would remain whole. I could see it dissolving in 50 years, it's northern part being reabsorbed into the Union (possibly being added to Oklahoma and New Mexico) and the southern half being taken by Mexico.


While we're at it, we can Sell Alaska to Canada and that'd probably wipe out our Debt completely! Shoot, Alaskans are pretty much Canadians already. We'd just be finishing the job. Hey! Maybe we can Trade Alaska for Quebec!
:cool:

Everyone wants to jump ship when times are bad.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
2012electoralmapresultsfinal110812.jpg



Every red state has a path to TX, LA, MS, AL...access to the gulf of Mexico. With the exception of Alaska, but they're already isolated for most part right now with their own ports.

It's the blue states that would be in trouble, they're detached...a person in Cali couldn't ship something to Michigan without crossing red.
I'm not certain why people keep confusing the word 'county' with the word 'state'. This isn't that difficult.

Interesting. Mabye a new development in the ways commerce is done and negotiations?
 
Upvote 0

DrkSdBls

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2006
1,721
56
42
✟2,298.00
Faith
Seeker
Easy G (G²);61954283 said:
The Highway system is indeed so vast that trying to reshape it (although necessary in line with legal principle of border checks for differing countries) would be a huge task in/of itself...as the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System is so extensive one would wonder how in the world are borders going to be made that could effectively manage what he set up....and how to divide up something and ensure that all people in the U.S benefit from it. With multiple differing nations present in the U.S if secession developed, all would be seeking to take ownership of the system - with the others who didn't secede feeling the burn from it if other new nations decided to make travel/access more difficult than necessary....unless people decided to go back to using highway routes that were present before the Federally funded interstate was developed (which would take LONGer for others - and even then, patrol/securtiy development would need to be increased for principles to be honored).

Actually, The Secessionists don't want anything Federally Pay for anyway so......

No Highways, No Post Service, no Internet, etc....

Yeah, I can't wait til Texas Bails out on America, only to realize that they no longer have Access to their Email. Or to Check their inappropriate content! ^_^^_^^_^
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Actually, The Secessionists don't want anything Federally Pay for anyway so......

No Highways, No Post Service, no Internet, etc....
That's the point. Even in asking for nothing federally paid for, there are benefits people don't really consider will go away that are taken for granted - from nice development of roads/infrastructure and proper interstates to the use of the Postal Service system/mail and many other things. And the harm it'd do to others who DIDN'T secede and had to work around their new countries just to get things through would be a problem - on top of the failing infranstructre the new countries would have to deal with.
Yeah, I can't wait til Texas Bails out on America, only to realize that they no longer have Access to their Email. Or to Check their inappropriate content! ^_^^_^^_^
God forbid they even remain concerned with inappropriate contentagraphy - already destructive enough to the country on multiple levels. Human trafficking (fueled by inappropriate content) is enough of an issue - and Texas alongside others will need to address how to keep traffickers benefiting from the XXX industry out of the areas without more federal help.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Actually, The Secessionists don't want anything Federally Pay for anyway
Then again - if choosing to become like Puerto Rico was as a commonwealth, there'd still be payments from the federal government - except with less representation.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I think I might prefer no infrastructure over a corrupt one.
One would think that corruption can be found with or without infrastructure - with the option for no infrastructure being mob rule.
 
Upvote 0

jgarden

Senior Veteran
Jan 1, 2004
10,695
3,181
✟106,405.00
Faith
Methodist
All over the United States, movements for states/regions to leave the Union have become increasingly popular. It seems like these movements are becoming more and more mainstream.

Rebel Yell: 700,000 Americans sign secession petitions to White House - YouTube

Not only are these movements gaining popularity in the South, but also right in the heart of New England.

Second Vermont Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was wondering what everyone thought about this issue.
Even if it were allowed politically, it would be an administrative "nightmare"

Small pockets of successionists would constitute a continuous "revolving door" of individuals opting in or out to the Union depending on the results of federal, state and municipal elections at any given time.
 
Upvote 0

SoldierOfTheKing

Christian Spenglerian
Jan 6, 2006
9,223
3,039
Kenmore, WA
✟276,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
DrkSdBls said:
Actually, The Secessionists don't want anything Federally Pay for anyway so......

No Highways, No Post Service, no Internet, etc....

Plenty of people outside of the US manage to have all of those things...

Nothing is "federally paid for" as it is, anyway. The money all comes from the states.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SnowCal

50 Cent Party
Jan 24, 2012
1,715
72
✟9,835.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Plenty of people outside of the US manage to have all of those things...

They pay taxes for them. Most of these place wanting to secede ain't wanting to do that. If the South secedes it'll turn into Mexico within a generation, or Greece.

Nothing is "federally paid for" as it is, anyway. The money all comes from the states.

If California and New York pay far more in federal taxes than they recieve in federal spending, which they do, so that Alabama and South Carolina can recieve far more in spending than they pay in taxes, which they do, then yes things are federally paid for.

Take out that constant flow of free money into your states by seceding and it's only a generation before you are Mexico or Greece. Good luck.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I suspect that the US would have the same reasons for trying to prevent it. Many liberal folks like to bad mouth the ways of states like Texas, but if it came down to actually losing a state like Texas, they'd never allow it because of the revenue the country gets from a state that size.

Texas actually gets more from the Feds than we send to Washington. There's also a number of medium sized cities that are largely dependant on military bases.

For me personally, I have several friends in Texas, if they did manage to break away...I'd consider moving there.

This state is no Libertopia. As an atheist, you might find an Independant Texas less than welcoming.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Many folks in Texas have wanted to break away for a while (long before the most recent election)

{I know it's a logical fallacy but..}

No one I know here does.

{/so sue me}
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, I remember the Republic of Texas group that tried printing their own money but the more widespread movement and the added support came about because of hatred of Obama and the election. Obama was apparently imposing Islamo-socialism and setting up FEMA death camps so the "patriots" need to succeed. It's not just a few tin foilers in Texas anymore either but the right wingers in a lot of states advocating the abolition of the union.

I remember Rick McLaren back in the 90s. When the Texas Rangers came to help him find accomdations in Huntsville, he started calling out for help over his short wave radio asking, of all people, the U.N. to come to his aid.

For those of us familiar with him and his NWO nuttiness, it was quite ironic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas_(group)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Take out that constant flow of free money into your states by seceding and it's only a generation before you are Mexico or Greece. Good luck.
Can it go opposite due to being held afloat by dirty money/black market or other places outside of the U.S willing to support them?
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The didn't. Freedmen fought for the Union.

Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were slave states and fought (nominally) on the federal side, including raising regiments for the federals.
 
Upvote 0

DrkSdBls

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2006
1,721
56
42
✟2,298.00
Faith
Seeker
Plenty of people outside of the US manage to have all of those things...

Payed for by some Government.

Nothing just 'Exists' without somebody, somewhere producing goods and an infrastructure to provide the masses with said goods.

Nothing is "federally paid for" as it is, anyway. The money all comes from the states.
^_^^_^^_^^_^ Good One! You almost had me going there for a moment.

Oh, and if you were actually serious, states are Governements, by the way; Governments without the the means of self-sustainment. Right now there's isn't anything that the "State" provides that is not supported by the Federal Government.

That's the Price you pay for living in this "Luxury." But hey, If you want to Reside to Through yourself back into the Dark Ages by throwing a Little Hissy-fit because you didn't get your way, Be Our Guest!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DrkSdBls

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2006
1,721
56
42
✟2,298.00
Faith
Seeker
Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were slave states and fought (nominally) on the federal side, including raising regiments for the federals.

But the Question was, were they Fighting to Maintain Slaverly or the Union?

Just because they were Historically Slave states did not mean that they weren't inclined the do away with it if that's what the People Wanted. The fact they decided to Fight for the North meant that enough of them believed that giving up Slavery was the better option.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
But the Question was, were they Fighting to Maintain Slaverly or the Union?

Just because they were Historically Slave states did not mean that they weren't inclined the do away with it if that's what the People Wanted. The fact they decided to Fight for the North meant that enough of them believed that giving up Slavery was the better option.

Why did Lincoln wait until 1863 to issue the Emancipation Proclamation?
 
Upvote 0