The Unlikely Secession

Some of you may be aware that for several years now (at least back to 2003), a small percentage of citizens in Vermont have favored secession from the United States. According to a recent AP article:

A poll this year by the University of Vermont's Center for Rural Studies found that 13 percent of those surveyed support secession, up from 8 percent a year before.

I did not find in the article any reference to the number of people actually polled, and though the article additionally mentioned that there are secession movements in Hawaii, Alaska, New Hampshire, Texas, and South Carolina (naturally), no mention is made of the size of those movements. I suspect they account for only a minute percentage of the population.

Do you feel that the chances of any state seceding from the union are even close to likely in the near future? I just don't personally see it happening, at least not in a one-state-at-a-time fashion, and certainly not if those states aren't physically adjacent. As long as most people perceive their basic rights to still be in tact (or, put more simply: they go about their days as they always have without major governmental interference), I don't consider a state seceding as even being in the realm of possibility.

Avoiding scenarios of "natural" division (like any sort of massive disaster that might physically divide the US in such a way that regions band together), what sort of scenario would it take for either a single state or multiple states to split in this age? Does anyone in Vermont or familiar with that state think that it and its citizens are in a position to secede any time soon?


/tn.



[edit on 4-6-2007 by teleonaut]

Personally I think we will see at least one state secede, probably two or three,
though they may not stay seceded.


I think Alaska and Hawaii, the latter being more likely are the the most likely states to Secede.


Hawaii itself has been trying to ever since we forced them into the Union, and there is
significant support for it.

Alaska, well Alaska is really like a mini nation in itself, it's not connected to the United States,
it's a massive area and has a lot of people who could survive on there own.



As long as a state is based on the tenants of Democracy, Freedom, Justice and Equality,
I really don't mind if it secedes or not, though if it were to espouse an overtly
Libertarian socio-economic ideology, I probably would'nt be quite as supporting.



In the long run though, the future of the continent wont be the addition of nations via secession,
it will be the creation of a United North America.

posted by teleonaut

Some of you may be aware that for several years now (at least back to 2003), a small percentage of citizens in Vermont have favored secession from the United States. According to a recent AP article . .

A poll this year by the University of Vermont's Center for Rural Studies found that 13 percent of those surveyed support secession, up from 8 percent a year before.

I found no reference to the number of people polled . . the article mentioned there are secession movements in Hawaii, Alaska, New Hampshire, Texas, and South Carolina, no mention is made of the size of those movements. I suspect they account for only a minute percentage of the population. [Edited by Don W]

I liken these people to a bridge club or maybe even a chess club. The old Mensa club comes to mind. (Is it still in existence?) Sort of a libertarian protest forum.

Since the 1960s or so, there has been a plethora of new and small countries all around the world. Singapore departed Malaysia. Hong Kong and Macao maintain a quasi-independent status although both are now incorporated into the PRC. The (Portugese) city of Goa in India may still be independent of New Delhi? Historically, post War 1, was the Free City of Danzig, which was a German enclave in the newly reformed Poland. Today's Gdansk, home of the Polich Solidarity Movement. Currently, the Russian Federation’s city of Kaliningrad (old Konigsberg of East Prussia) is geographically separated from Russia; one must pass through either Lithuania or Poland then Belarus before reaching Russia.

I think there are 200+ countries around the world today and the UN has about 190+ members. As a kid I used to look up San Marino, Monaco, Liechtenstein and Andorra as small countries. Those places are allowed to exist because they serve a function, as in Andorra, situated between France and Spain high in the Pyrenees. Smuggling. We all know the purpose of Monaco on the south coast of France. Gambling. And etc.

Do you feel that the chances of any state seceding from the union are even close to likely in the near future? I just don't personally see it happening, at least not in a one-state-at-a-time fashion and certainly not if those states aren't physically adjacent.

Nil to none. If California was an independent country, it would have the 7th largest GDP in the world. But this step - secession - was rejected in 1861. As President in 1832, Andrew Jackson is reputed to have stopped earlier talk of secession by Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina by warning him that he, Jackson, would personally hang him, Calhoun, in Charleston. Calhoun shut up, knowing that Jackson had already killed 2 men in duels.

Avoiding scenarios of a "natural" division [caused by] massive disaster that physically divided the US . . Does anyone in Vermont or familiar with that state think that it and its citizens are in a position to secede any time soon? tn. [Edited by Don W]

I’ve never had the pleasure of visiting Vermont. I know it became the 14th state in 1791. The state had been claimed by New York and New Hampshire. I believe some people in Vermont around 1790 had claimed to be an independent country, but no one took them seriously then and no one does today. I think one senator and a representative hold themselves out to be “Independent” in Congress but frequently vote with the Democrats. Sen. Jeffords moved from GOP to Independent in 2001 to give the Dems control of the Senate for nearly 2 years, until the 2002 election.

Secession is not an option.

[edit on 6/5/2007 by donwhite]

It will absolutely happen. It has to as the divisions in this country get deeper and wider. They arent all hollow like racial or sexual divisions anymore. Theyre economic and political divisions. One government no matter how 'democratic' can maintain a union this size with so many people and so much land. In fact, the more democratic it becomes the deeper the divide. During the last few elections state and federal divides are closer and closer to 50-50. How long will 49% allow 51% to tell them how to live? Not very. If a Democrat wins the Presidency in '08 and nothing changes ( I believe all of the powers and rights Bush has taken will just be rolled right into the next Presidency + some) it will become more apparent to the people still in denial that both parties are working toward the same end.

Either there will be secession followed by a police state action or a police state action followed by a revolution.

And why, pray tell, does Libertarianism dismiss: Freedom, Justice and Equality? Its like you just said: 'as long as a state is libertarian but doesnt call itself that Im okay with it.' You're nor using a broad brush dipped in ignorance to paint a relative picture are you? Thats dangerous stuff, man. Limbaugh "those damn liberals" kind of stuff. Its the sort of attitude that causes dictionary definitions to be ignored for 'common knowledge' and allows pop-culture to dictate policy. The only thing to offor more freedom and equality than Libertarianism would be Anarchy.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
And why, pray tell, does Libertarianism dismiss: Freedom, Justice and Equality? Its like you just said: 'as long as a state is libertarian but does'nt call itself that I'm okay with it.' You're nor using a broad brush dipped in ignorance to paint a relative picture are you? Thats dangerous stuff, man. Limbaugh "those damn liberals" kind of stuff. Its the sort of attitude that causes dictionary definitions to be ignored for 'common knowledge' and allows pop-culture to dictate policy.

I meant like not having any government oversight of corporations, thusly allowing them
to do many more bad things than they can now, the total abolishment of taxes and the
ideology of the individual is always more important than the group.

The only thing to offor more freedom and equality than Libertarianism would be Anarchy.

Which seems to be the end result that a significant portion of Libertarians (not all, probably 30%) want,
and ironically enough is the desired end result of Communism.