Reuters: 1 in 4 Americans support secession of their state from the US - Polidicks

[quote]For the past few weeks, as Scotland debated the wisdom of independence, Reuters has been asking Americans how they would feel about declaring independence today, not from the United Kingdom, but from the mother country they left England to create. The exact wording of the question was, “Do you support or oppose the idea of your state peacefully withdrawing from the United States of America and the federal government?” .... Secession got more support from Republicans than Democrats, more from right- than left-leaning independents, more from younger than older people, more from lower- than higher-income brackets, more from high school than college grads. But there was a surprising amount of support in every group and region, especially the Rocky Mountain states, the Southwest and the old Confederacy, but also in places like Illinois and Kansas. And of the people who said they identified with the Tea Party, supporters of secession were actually in the majority, with 53 percent. The question is, what do results like this mean for the country?[/quote] [url=http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/]Reuters[/url] [img]http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/files/2014/09/SECESSION_opinion_map-with-q.jpg[/img]

Too bad that's illegal [editline]20th September 2014[/editline] and stupid in general

Woo, New England having the least/most secluded idiots!

Now put a map of the American Militia Movement's by city location, and you'll get your answers why :v:

[QUOTE=Milkdairy;46029207]Too bad that's illegal [editline]20th September 2014[/editline] and stupid in general[/QUOTE] Didn't Texas have some clause in them joining the Union that they could succeed if they wished?

Younger, low-income, high school level education, right-wing kids. How am I not surprised.

[quote]The question is, what do results like this mean for the country?[/quote] Nothing

[QUOTE=Milkdairy;46029207]Too bad that's illegal [editline]20th September 2014[/editline] and stupid in general[/QUOTE] You say illegal as if that's a good reason not to do it. Of all the reasons why not, that probably goes to the bottom of the list. Not saying it's not a bad idea, but it was technically illegal for the U.S. to break off in the first place and declare independence.

[QUOTE=download;46029279]Didn't Texas have some clause in them joining the Union that they could succeed if they wished?[/QUOTE] With some cursory research, it appears that the whole deal comes from a situation where Texas was accepted into the Union in the 1840's by a Joint Resolution passed through Congress (that some people) consider an illegal and invalid way of bringing a state formally into the Union (in other words, they believe the joining with the Union didn't count and was unofficial). Then a vote happened in Texas to secede during the Civil War and since the war's end, supporters of the Republic of Texas believe the Union and later the United States simply occupied Texas and it is still a free state. But, the Surpreme Court apparently made two rulings at the turn of the 20th century to debunk this. First, they made it clear that the vote made to secede from the Union was illegal and so didn't count. And two, they made it clear the Joint Resolution that initially brought Texas into the Union was in fact a legal motion for bringing a state into the US's fold.

Civil War

[QUOTE=Milkdairy;46029207]Too bad that's illegal [/QUOTE] Independent USA's existence is illegal if you want to go that way.

[QUOTE=download;46029279]Didn't Texas have some clause in them joining the Union that they could succeed if they wished?[/QUOTE] No, but it can divide itself into multiple other states if they vote on it.

I mean, probably most countries that exist today went through at the time outright treasonous revolution at some point to eventually become what they are.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46029331]Independent USA's existence is illegal if you want to go that way.[/QUOTE] I think he's just saying that there isn't any process that could lead to independence within the existing structure.

Those numbers are pretty bizarrely high but considering none of them even borders 50% it's not like they could pass a vote even if the government agreed to it

I think I understand now. It isn't that polls are full of shit intentionally, but the people that take the time to answer them, kinda are.

This whole poll pertains to a peaceful secession, which is not really possible (nor favorable for any state) which is why I mentioned the legality of it. Statehood is a very permanent thing in most cases, and I think that when it reaches a point that a vast majority of people within a state support a secession by force, we'd have much more problems to worry about than simply that. It is within the rights of the people to dismantle a government that is not fulfilling its obligations to those people but I dont believe the US government is by any significant measure failing to do its job. When the outside viewer is able to compare the common US city to the likes of Iraq and Pakistan then maybe I will listen to complaints about how our resurgent economy is actually going down the shitter and our rights are actually at the mercy of the Chinese [QUOTE]Independent USA's existence is illegal if you want to go that way.[/QUOTE] While the forceful secession of the US was indeed illegal, that doesn't really hold any relevance to the fact that the Declaration of Independence and the events that followed were triggered by multiple escalations, provocations, and years of breaches to the rights of the colonists, who were meant to hold the same rights and privileges as any other English citizen would. The monarchy (and parliament) simply did not consider them to hold these rights, as evidenced by the historical treatment of the U.S. colonists. You could not say the same for an attempted secession of Texas, because I don't see Texans getting killed, beaten, unfairly burdened, and robbed by the government. All citizens of the US are entitled certain rights and they are in every case possible upheld.

There are a few people on facepunch who actually believe Cascadia (secession of BC/Washington/Oregon) will be a thing. Which it won't. Ever.

[QUOTE=Milkdairy;46029462]This whole poll pertains to a peaceful secession, which is not really possible (nor favorable for any state) which is why I mentioned the legality of it. Statehood is a very permanent thing in most cases, and I think that when it reaches a point that a vast majority of people within a state support a secession by force, we'd have much more problems to worry about than simply that. It is within the rights of the people to dismantle a government that is not fulfilling its obligations to those people but I dont believe the US government is by any significant measure failing to do its job. When the outside viewer is able to compare the common US city to the likes of Iraq and Pakistan then maybe I will listen to complaints about how our resurgent economy is actually going down the shitter and our rights are actually at the mercy of the Chinese[/QUOTE] Have you heard of a place called "Detroit"?

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46029331]Independent USA's existence is illegal if you want to go that way.[/QUOTE]Not really. In the U.S. there are two ways a state can secede: A successful vote by all states in the Union, or a successful revolution. The Confederacy failed, and therefore they were not able to secede. By all accounts the U.S. won its revolution and then defended its claim. The Declaration of Independence is just a document setting out the matter on paper and the general feelings of the states. Unilateral succession is not allowed with in the U.S. What affects the Union as a whole is subject to the decision making of the Union as a whole. A state seceding affects the entire Union, therefore the entire Union gets to decide if it is allowable.

I think Awesomecaek was referring to the USA's independence from the British Empire. [editline]20th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Cakebatyr;46029626]Have you heard of a place called "Detroit"?[/QUOTE] The failures of Detroit cannot be pinned on the federal government alone if at all. Instead, its was the result of its existence really. A city propped up on a single industry which failed to compete with foreign competition, surrounded by a backdrop of corruption and racial tension. There is little regarding its decline that the federal government held responsibility for. What goes boom will eventually go bust.

[QUOTE=Milkdairy;46029668]I think Awesomecaek was referring to the USA's independence from the British Empire.[/QUOTE]Which I brought up. The U.S. successfully revolted, and then was able to defend itself from being reclaimed. That arguably makes their claim legitimate. The same thing would apply to a state within the U.S. if it declares itself independent, and then can successfully defend itself from being reclaimed, then arguably its claim is legitimate. Hence the "successful revolution" part. If it cannot defend itself, then it has no place trying to be an independent nation, as an important function of being an independent nation is the ability to defend oneself from aggressors.

Somehow I missed that entire line in your response covering the American Revolution. Sorry. :( But speaking entirely in context of English law I would maintain that the revolution was illegal, yet eventually legitimized by the recognition of the independent United States by the British government following the conclusion of the revolution.

[QUOTE=usaokay;46029762][img]http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/cut_off_florida.gif[/img][/QUOTE] This is clearly the only legitimate form of secession

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46029740]Which I brought up. The U.S. successfully revolted, and then was able to defend itself from being reclaimed. That arguably makes their claim legitimate. The same thing would apply to a state within the U.S. if it declares itself independent, and then can successfully defend itself from being reclaimed, then arguably its claim is legitimate. Hence the "successful revolution" part. If it cannot defend itself, then it has no place trying to be an independent nation, as an important function of being an independent nation is the ability to defend oneself from aggressors.[/QUOTE] Ukraine and Poland can't really defend themselves from Russia. Does this leave them no place as nations? Scotland was not voting on independence because the union was crippling them, they did it because a large portion of them thought they would be better alone, and I think if it came to it the US really should let states secede if there was a majority vote to do so in the state.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;46029814]Ukraine and Poland can't really defend themselves from Russia. Does this leave them no place as nations? Scotland was not voting on independence because the union was crippling them, they did it because a large portion of them thought they would be better alone, and I think if it came to it the US really should let states secede if there was a majority vote to do so in the state.[/QUOTE] While Doctor Zedacon pretty much lays out some of the important factors in a nation's sovereignty, one of the biggest factors really is external recognition. The key line you're opposing here is however the cold hard truth. If the Ukraine cannot defend itself from Russia by any means necessary, then it holds no place as a nation simply because it will be dismantled by a superior state. Nations like Poland however are very much capable of defending themselves from provocations by Russia. To put it simply, I'd say a nation's ability to defend itself from aggressors not only lies in the confidence of its citizens and its military prowess, but also in its recognition by other states and those nations' willingness to guarantee its sovereignty. What Poland may lack in its military in comparison to Russia's it makes up for by having strong ties with those nations that are willing and capable of defending it. As some may know, even the American patriots of the revolutionary times were not alone in their struggle. France and other nations recognized and assisted the Americans in their revolution through various means before eventually going through their own, and only by mediation of France was the independent American nation officially recognized by what is perhaps the most important state to be recognized by: the one you're trying to secede from. Undoubtedly there is a chance that the American Revolution could have failed if not for foreign interference

New England surprises me given that the Free State Project is set in NH. Also, I believe the right of self determination is a human right regardless of legality and it's stupid that it's "illegal" to secede from the US. There should at least be mechanisms in place for referendums if it ever reached that point. RIP 10th Amendment

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;46029814]Ukraine and Poland can't really defend themselves from Russia. Does this leave them no place as nations?[/QUOTE]Those are existing nations, not part of existing ones trying to form new ones. [QUOTE]Scotland was not voting on independence because the union was crippling them, they did it because a large portion of them thought they would be better alone, and I think if it came to it the US really should let states secede if there was a majority vote to do so in the state.[/QUOTE]With the U.S., you're part of a greater whole than yourself. You're a component of a larger body, and therefore the rest gets a say. [editline]20th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;46029838]New England surprises me given that the Free State Project is set in NH. Also, I believe the right of self determination is a human right regardless of legality and it's stupid that it's "illegal" to secede from the US. There should at least be mechanisms in place for referendums if it ever reached that point. RIP 10th Amendment[/QUOTE]People think the 10th Amendment means "Do whatever you want." It doesn't. States that join are still subjected to the decisions of congress about the nation as a whole, but they get decision making abilities within themselves. But they are still a part of the Union and its an inescapable reality. They join the Union, they must live with what that means. Its a willing sacrifice to join with a larger entity.

I think I over-explained my above post. You're actually right, Doctor Zedacon. NeonpieDFTBA's concerns are irrelevant because the Ukraine and Poland are historically sovereign and thus hold a natural right to stay as such. And though they may have been a seceding or successor nation at one point in history, the lack of recognition by a dead or defunct parent nation holds no relevance in current time. Russia has no right nor privilege to disregard either country's status as an independent nation.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46029844]Those are existing nations, not part of existing ones trying to form new ones. With the U.S., you're part of a greater whole than yourself. You're a component of a larger body, and therefore the rest gets a say. [editline]20th September 2014[/editline] People think the 10th Amendment means "Do whatever you want." It doesn't. States that join are still subjected to the decisions of congress about the nation as a whole, but they get decision making abilities within themselves. But they are still a part of the Union and its an inescapable reality. They join the Union, they must live with what that means. Its a willing sacrifice to join with a larger entity.[/QUOTE] Scotland being independent would of affected the remainder of the United Kingsom also, however the right for self determination was respected.