New poll shows 1 in 4 Americans Open to Secession

Secede and do what? Create a "more pure republic" based on fundamentals of the ideology/paradigm that got us here in the first place?

"If we only followed the Constitution." We don't. We never have. It's not going to be any different with "your people" in charge.

"This time we'll get it right." No you won't. When I hear stuff like this I think of all the Marxist-Leninists (who will never allow themselves to be called that, even though that's what they are) out there trying to resurrect a failed ideology--an ideology that "wouldn't have failed" if "the right people" had been in charge. Right.

Anyway. Go ahead, secede. I don't want the current "system" either, but all you're going to do is replace it with more of the same. Leave me out of it. Get back to me when your plans don't have anything to do with Ludwig von Mises or Karl Marx.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: grandmakdw

I vote to have Washington DC secede from the union!

Show of hands?

You could always invite us Brits and Canadians back to finish burning it to the ground?

I'm afraid the virus that completely took out DC has gone
everywhere here. Even fire won't kill it, it's greed.

If it would make any difference I'd start crocheting a
dream-catcher immediately -- with a bunch of miniature
landmarks suspended in way strong medicine. At this
point though, even native NA voodoo may hit the wall.

My state along has issues, such as funds cut in the healthcare sector because of being a Red state that doesn't abide by O-Care for example. It cannot support alone without Government help. Also it has lower population than others. Maybe if it joined something like Cascadia, sure, but alone highly doubt it'd be able to make it.

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
Quite clearly the party platforms switched, not loyalties.

The platforms were switched when big government became an advocate for socialist policies rather than capitalist. Roosevelt, who is considered responsible for sealing the deal for the platform switch, signed the "New Deal" into law which began a series of socialist type policies in response to the Great Depression.

Roosevelt said, "Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth".

The equitable distribution of wealth has never been a republican policy. To say that this event defined a switch of party platforms is not the whole truth. The days of big government in the past aided capitalism and supported a free market economy. The days of big government in the present aid a more socialistic economy.

Abraham Lincoln was a republican with conservative values as they have always been known. It only appears, to those who don't like the fact that a republican freed the slaves, that the party platforms were switched. But, this is an illusion.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

OK, I see your point. Dissolving the Union won't receive widespread traction until other options are exercised and found lacking.

A convention of the States being likely the first step.

It's not like dissolving the union is a widespread idea. As a matter of fact, I haven't found anyone else on ATS that promotes the concept. Too many still love this land-even though it no longer exists- and too many fear the possible consequences that could result.

I suppose I should relegate it to a potential option. Useful only as an intellectual exercise...

My real motive in promoting it is as an alternative to outright revolution. I still feel strongly that there is insufficient wiggle-room/time to go through these steps and 'recover'.

Too much to fix, too much going on to distract from the fixes. Momentum will win out...

originally posted by: NthOther
Secede and do what? Create a "more pure republic" based on fundamentals of the ideology/paradigm that got us here in the first place?

"If we only followed the Constitution." We don't. We never have. It's not going to be any different with "your people" in charge.

"This time we'll get it right." No you won't. When I hear stuff like this I think of all the Marxist-Leninists (who will never allow themselves to be called that, even though that's what they are) out there trying to resurrect a failed ideology--an ideology that "wouldn't have failed" if "the right people" had been in charge. Right.

Anyway. Go ahead, secede. I don't want the current "system" either, but all you're going to do is replace it with more of the same. Leave me out of it. Get back to me when your plans don't have anything to do with Ludwig von Mises or Karl Marx.

With more governments the citizens have more options. A citizen can leave a state they don't like and go to state that they like better. The states would need to be as citizen friendly as possible in order to keep their tax base.

Big national governments have a monopoly in coercion that dozens smaller governments would not have.

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
Quite clearly the party platforms switched, not loyalties.

The platforms were switched when big government became an advocate for socialist policies rather than capitalist. Roosevelt, who is considered responsible for sealing the deal for the platform switch, signed the "New Deal" into law which began a series of socialist type policies in response to the Great Depression.

Roosevelt said, "Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth".

The equitable distribution of wealth has never been a republican policy. To say that this event defined a switch of party platforms is not the whole truth. The days of big government in the past aided capitalism and supported a free market economy. The days of big government in the present aid a more socialistic economy.

Abraham Lincoln was a republican with conservative values as they have always been known. It only appears, to those who don't like the fact that a republican freed the slaves, that the party platforms were switched. But, this is an illusion.

You need to go back to history school. Lincoln was a lying brutal savage along with his generals and the republican who helped him. Read his speeches when he was in the Illinois house how he championed a bill to keep free black men from moving into Illinois. The whole bs about the civil war was to free the slaves is just that BS. England Spain and many other countries did away with slavery peacefully why did Lincoln choose to slaughter over 600,000 men women and children.

originally posted by: guitarplayer
The whole bs about the civil war was to free the slaves is just that BS.

The civil war was about several things. The Emancipation Proclamation signed by lincoln freed the slaves. That's not BS. That's what happened.

England Spain and many other countries did away with slavery peacefully why did Lincoln choose to slaughter over 600,000 men women and children.

Lincoln wanted to unify the United States. The South, who seceded from the Union fired the first shots of the war at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. So, Lincoln didn't choose anything. He did what had to be done. It sounds like you need to go back to history school. Or, at least, have some respect for one of the greatest leaders America has ever had.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

With more governments the citizens have more options. A citizen can leave a state they don't like and go to state that they like better. The states would need to be as citizen friendly as possible in order to keep their tax base.

We tried that. It didn't work. That's what I'm saying.

originally posted by: NthOther

Secede and do what? Create a "more pure republic" based on fundamentals of the ideology/paradigm that got us here in the first place?

originally posted by: smithjustinb
The whole bs about the civil war was to free the slaves is just that BS.

originally posted by: smithjustinb
The civil war was about several things.

Yes, true, as we recognize it today, as it was recognized then, in that day, by the Republican Party as stated in the Republican Party Platform of 1864

1. Resolved, That it is the highest duty of every American citizen to maintain against all their enemies the integrity of the Union and the paramount authority of the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that, laying aside all differences of political opinion, we pledge ourselves, as Union men, animated by a common sentiment and aiming at a common object, to do everything in our power to aid the Government in quelling by force of arms the Rebellion now raging against its authority, and in bringing to the punishment due to their crimes the Rebels and traitors arrayed against it.

2. Resolved, That we approve the determination of the Government of the United States not to compromise with Rebels, or to offer them any terms of peace, except such as may be based upon an unconditional surrender of their hostility and a return to their just allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that we call upon the Government to maintain this position and to prosecute the war with the utmost possible vigor to the complete suppression of the Rebellion, in full reliance upon the self-sacrificing patriotism, the heroic valor and the undying devotion of the American people to the country and its free institutions.

3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, hostile to the principles of Republican Government, justice and the National safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic; and that, while we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the Government, in its own defense, has aimed a deathblow at this gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of Slavery within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States.

originally posted by: smithjustinb
The Emancipation Proclamation signed by lincoln freed the slaves. That's not BS. That's what happened

Yes, but it needs to be recognized that

Even today we cannot say with any assurance that Abraham Lincoln was wronto suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War, as he did on several occasions, even though the Constitution is clear that only Congress can suspend this right. (Another of Lincoln's wartime measures, the Emancipation Proclamation, may also have been unconstitutional.) But Lincoln would have been wrong to cancel the 1864 presidential election, as some urged: by November of 1864 the North was close to victory, and canceling the election would have created a more dangerous precedent than the wartime suspension of habeas corpus. This last example shows that civil liberties remain part of the balance even in the most dangerous of times, and even though their relative weight must then be less.

Lincoln's unconstitutional acts during the Civil War show that even legality must sometimes be sacrificed for other values. We are a nation under law, but first we are a nation.

originally posted by: smithjustinb
Lincoln wanted to unify the United States. The South, who seceded from the Union fired the first shots of the war at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. So, Lincoln didn't choose anything. ... have some respect for one of the greatest leaders America has ever had.

Very true, we do need to pay respect to him advancing social issues and giving us a Union that would not have its strength today divided; however, we also recognize the above notes and how that was also a cost. Many of our President's who did great things did so at great costs, its a balancing act.Lincoln prevented secession and preserved the Union but he set a dangerous precedent.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

With more governments the citizens have more options. A citizen can leave a state they don't like and go to state that they like better. The states would need to be as citizen friendly as possible in order to keep their tax base.

We tried that. It didn't work. That's what I'm saying.

originally posted by: NthOther

Secede and do what? Create a "more pure republic" based on fundamentals of the ideology/paradigm that got us here in the first place?

It worked for regular folks. The elites of money and politics made the Constitution.

Also it worked in Europe to some degree. Dissenters in pre America Europe could move to other countries and still be in Christendom. The mobility of citizens kept the governments of Europe the most tolerant in the world.

IN another poll wait for this

And then, today, the National Science Foundation (NSF) delivered news of a pretty shocking poll result: around one in four Americans (yes, that's 25 percent) are unaware that the Earth orbits the sun. Let’s repeat that: One in four Americans — that represents one quarter of the population —

news.discovery.com...

a reply to: douglas5

I get your point about polls. Yes they can be skewed.

However, when I lived in Hawaii, lots of people discussed secession regularly.

I did however, work at the University and so the people I was with tended to be more intellectual than the average person. So discussing topics that stretch the mind was a regular occurrence. However, even among the "regular" people in my neighborhood ( I lived in Mililani) there was a lot of discussion about secession quite regularly.

This was about 20 years ago and I don't imagine that the talk has become less than it was 20 years ago when American "pride" was quite high.



I lived in Texas several times and talk of secession did not really take off until the last 6 years.

There was buzzing before that but once Obama started implementing Obamacare; and the regulators decided to regulate everything to death; and the TSA started putting its hands down peoples pants; and the IRS started targeting people as punishment; and the NSA started its overreach; that is when the serious talk of secession began in earnest. This talk was not so much in academia but widely spread among the "average" person.

So I do think that at least in those 2 states they know what secession is and they truly are considering it as an option.

However, the federal government will do like it did in Lincolns day, send the military to bomb the heck out of them into submission.

Our federal government is power hungry and won't let go without creaming every last person in a state that wants out of the union, no matter the cost in innocent lives or to the union itself.

a reply to: grandmakdw

We just had the same ordeal in Scotland and boy did it get heated for a while UGLY would be a better word to use .

i would watch out more for voter fraud than the army turning up to spoil thing's but after living in America you would have seen elections stolen before a few times in the past , good luck

originally posted by: grandmakdw
However, when I lived in Hawaii, lots of people discussed secession regularly.

I did however, work at the University and so the people I was with tended to be more intellectual than the average person. So discussing topics that stretch the mind was a regular occurrence. However, even among the "regular" people in my neighborhood ( I lived in Mililani) there was a lot of discussion about secession quite regularly.

This was about 20 years ago and I don't imagine that the talk has become less than it was 20 years ago when American "pride" was quite high.

I am sure you are aware then, but others may not be, that is because (Source):

On January 16, 1893, United States diplomatic and military personnel conspired with a small group of individuals to overthrow the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and prepared to provide for annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of America, under a treaty of annexation submitted to the United States Senate, on February 15, 1893. Newly elected U.S. President Grover Cleveland, having received notice that the cause of the so-called revolution derived from illegal intervention by U.S. diplomatic and military personnel, withdrew the treaty of annexation and appointed James H. Blount, as Special Commissioner, to investigate the terms of the so-called revolution and to report his findings.

The report concluded that the United States legation assigned to the Hawaiian Kingdom, together with United States Marines and Naval personnel, were directly responsible for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government. The report details the culpability of the United States government in violating international laws and the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom, but the United States Government fails to follow through in its commitment to assist in reinstating the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Instead, the United States allows five years to lapse and a new United States President, William McKinley, enters into a second treaty of annexation with the same individuals who participated in the illegal overthrow with the U.S. legation in 1893 on June 16, 1897, but the treaty was unable to be ratified by the United States Senate due to protests that were submitted by Her Majesty Queen Lili‘uokalani and signature petitions against annexation by 21,169 Hawaiian nationals.

As a result of the Spanish-American War, the United States opted to unilaterally annex the Hawaiian Islands by enacting a congressional joint resolution on July 7, 1898, in order to utilize the Hawaiian Islands as a military base to fight the Spanish in Guam and the Philippines. The United States has remained in the Hawaiian Islands and the Hawaiian Kingdom has since been under prolonged occupation to the present, but its continuity as an independent State remains intact under international law.

The main documents surrounding United States intervention and subsequent occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom are recorded in the following.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Living there I saw a great deal of pride in the Hawaiian roots and ancestry.

There is to this day regular get togethers with people from the royal blood line.

In my opinion, Hawaii never truly assimilated into the US and should not be forced to remain a part of the US if it doesn't want to be.

The US "needs" the military bases there, but can pay rent on the land just as they do for other countries. SInce the Hawaiian economy does rely to some extent on their presence, I'm sure a mutually agreeable arrangement could be made.

The Hawaiian people when I was there greatly resented anyone of non-color and people of non-color could not go certain places on the island due to this great resentment. Their pride in their Kingdom never left and was celebrated annually with great ceremony in the schools.

I can see the US letting Hawaii go unless to force it to stay would be making an example of those who want to go.

Texas on the other hand, well it fills the federal coffers rather than drains it like Hawaii, and I think their would be a horrible war fought if Texas voted to secede.

a reply to: grandmakdw
I agree in whole. The question(s) then would become, do citizens keep their American citizenship if they choose where U.S. offers immediate citizenship, or is it citizenship essentially null and void? ... and you know what that could mean, but that topic is not appropriate in this thread.

If any State were to secede Hawaii has the best case hands down.

nwtrucker asked me in a U2U

In your opinion, what single issue that could be agreed upon by the States, would have the greatest impact on reversing/correcting our current situation?

I replied:

That is a good question, and a complex and difficult one. First, no single issue is going to get the job done, there are several if not dozens. If I had to choose one that would perhaps show the most promise it would probably be something to the effect of ...

Using the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" in combination with what Justice Brandeis statement in the majority opinion of New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country" as a limit and all encompassing stop, that is complete restriction, on the Federal Government from regulation powers not already under legitimate Federal control and to strictly prohibit the power of the purse as a mechanism to coerce and force States to submit to the Federal will in exchange of funds, that funds strictly cannot be withheld for a State exercising its power in these regards, and for a independent commission be established to analyze commonly held, and historical laws used in these means to assess their nature and appropriate residing place of power.

Obviously, this would be written quite differently in legislator speak, but the idea is there. I think this would be a great place to start in reforming our grievances.

Let's suppose that a state did secede. Would their government just default to that which exists now as their state government, with the governor becoming the head of state? Or would there be a call for a convention to establish new sets of rules and procedures. There would be a need for a new currency, and a need for an international acceptance of this new countries' legitimacy. What sort of military power would there be? Would there be an international scramble to control this new player?

I'm no expert on this but it seems to me that there are very few states in the USA that fair very well in the self sufficiency category. There would need to be trade agreements, and I'm afraid this new puny upstart nation may catch the short end of that stick, having no real influence or power. All sorts of nasty intentions are likely to descend on your little corner of the world.

Secession fantasy in these united states, is fueled by a growing desire to oppose authority. I think what people would find if this should become a reality, is that moneyed interests would seek a safer haven. I think it's unrealistic to believe such a giant upheaval would result in only the removal of the yoke of a federal government.

I think what most people who call for secession want is for things to remain exactly as they are, with the exception that there be no outside interference with their own establishment of norms and standards that dictate daily life.

a reply to: okyouwin

You are correct I think in your assumption that the State government would by default become the "federal" government until a constitution was made and new elections held.

we have so few people voting in the first place, what kind of indirect democracy are we if we actively prevent people from voting, that is why the federal government has tried so hard to get the states and the people dependent on the federal government like a child depends on it's mother.

The National Guard would most likely become the military and the people in the US military who claim the seceded state as their state of residence would most likely become a part of the new "federal" military. The US military all are tied to a state when they join and pay taxes to that state and register vehicles in that state and are legally tied to the state.

Texas is actually in the best position to be self sufficient which is probably why there is a movement there.
South Dakota is probably in a position to be self sufficient now. I'm not certain of the position of other states.

Any state who isn't tied to the teet of the federal government for support is a viable candidate.

Your last paragraph basically is saying, the people who call for secession want their freedom and privacy back,
and I think you are correct.

I do not see the current US government willing to do that, regulations pour out of DC like a broken water main, and the IRS,NSA,TSA,etc are putting an ever tighter noose on privacy and freedom of action and most disconcertingly freedom of thought.