Secession in the USA

You know, when I hear of stuff like this, or complaints about the way the electoral college works, or similar stuff, I can't help but think: why wouldn't the USA, peacefully and of mutual accord, secede? I mean, the variety is just too wide, and there's a lot of people at the extremes. People who fight very hard for getting their own way whether the others like it or not. It's just too big to rule properly. So why not separate into chunks with enough common ground between each other that they can pass strong, unifying laws, for greater coordination and lesser clusterfuck?

Because last time we tried that, there was this hugeass war that seriously fucked up the guys trying to secede.

Because if every time people disagreed, they could just leave, the world would cease to function. The people who think that problems are totally unsolvable in the US need a good knock on the head so they can grow up. This isn't the first grade, it's normal adult life, and normal adults work through their problems instead of shooting at each other and going off to start their own.

But it's always "Federal Government is Overbearing", "Federal Government Is Too Big", "If Federal Government Keeps Pushing We Will Stand Up And Fight For Our Freedom"... You know, it feels like those people'd be better off among each other... Plus, adults divorce too.

That's why I said "peacefully and out of mutual agreement".

Despite the stereotypes, there has been enough fluidity in the United States that it's not just one region or another that can't agree with each other, it's neighbor versus neighbor, and really, separating each household into its own sovereign state is just not fiesable.

Because geography and demographics? The people described in ^^post aren't all concentrated in one area, and if you say they should pick an area to concentrate in, that's going to be a problem. Most states in the US aren't economically viable on their own, IIRC.

edited 16th Jul '11 4:41:42 PM by melloncollie

You're confusing noisy people's complaints with actual and real problems.

Do not rely on the people having a tantrum for an understanding of how the masses perceive things.

Also, the first people to try it made sure it's probably not going to happen again, because they did it in all the wrong ways for all the wrong reasons.

edited 16th Jul '11 4:47:26 PM by blueharp

I live in Georgia. If anyone seceded, it'd be Texas and probably Georgia. I'd really rather not no longer be a part of the US government.

Geography does not define a person's politics, but it does define the consequences of the political decisions of others. Bleck.

There's an idea (which may or may not be justified) that size equals power, and that any shrinking of the US's borders would mean a reduction in power, which would embolden Our Enemies. Thus, any attempt at secession must be prevented, with violence if necessary.

This. Also, the divides in our nation are as much urban-rural as they are north-south or east-west. So you can't draw lines on any kind of large scale where the people inside will agree.

The areas that are unified enough ideologically to form a nation aren't independent enough economically, as well. We could have a "Republic of the Mexican Border" or a "Soverign Nation of Appalachia" but what would they do to make money?

As a less radical solution, I think there's some merit in the idea of forming smaller, more independent states in some areas. Almost all the divisive issues would become insignificant if they were made state business and some of the more divided states were split up. Want socialized healthcare? Make it! Don't like it? Move to another state!

edited 16th Jul '11 4:50:07 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

I don't think exactly size equals power, but historically (and probably currently) being united was a much stronger strategic position for the states than being divided, despite the political squabbling it might cause.

"Smaller is weaker": Actually I get the exact opposite argument every time I argue for the United States of ALL America. Starting with Mexico + USA.

"Can't stand on their own": Economic and political independence don't need to be simultaneous: that's what trade is for.

edited 16th Jul '11 5:13:15 PM by GoodGuyGreg

Texas and California have the best chances of actually succeeding in breaking away from the union, being the most independent. I think that Georgia is the most likely to actually try it, maybe joined by parts of the neighboring states.

Well, the real question is, if the US did decide to divide up, who would get the chewy nougat center?

The big problem with breaking up the US (and with balkanization in general) is that some people are simply wrong. In a unified country (or region, for something like the EU,) compromise keeps stupid ideas from metastasizing into humanitarian disasters, and encourages everyone to bail people out when those do happen. Worse, if one of these little breakaway states turned into a belligerent dictatorship, it would just be one more mess to clean up. All in all, the price of not being able to enact ideal policies due to the need for compromise is well worth the benefits of unity.

Exactly. Let's flanderise each of the US's main population segments. The Deep South, The west coast, and the East coast. If the south were to form the Union States of Christ they would do pretty insane things that they would not have done if they were still part of the USA. We would need UN peacekeepers in - which would be a disaster considering most UNPK are South Asian...

edited 16th Jul '11 5:09:04 PM by Inhopelessguy

No offense to Mexico, but who in their right mind would want Mexico as it is right now.

Well that's silly. :/

In any case, I don't know enough about America to say whether this would work or not, or which states'd be most likely.

^^^ You left out most of the country. Wouldn't West, Midwest, North East and South be a more logical way to segment it?

Anyway, I think most states wouldn't be able to sustain themselves economically, and too many people would be against it anyway.

Fixed the title, btw.

edited 16th Jul '11 5:13:03 PM by BobbyG

Getting people to actually vote on this might shut up the secessionist Vocal Minority.

Who would have wanted Spain as it was back in 1975? Or Germany as it was in 1945. Aid happened, Very stringent, tightly controlled, heavily inspected aid for very specific, well-thought-out purposes. Problems were solved, progress happened.

It would mean abandoning our economic, cultural, and military position in the world, wrecking our collective economies, and giving rise to exactly the kind of insane political experiments that would require military intervention in short order. The world economy would undergo a catastrophic shift thanks to the loss of the dollar as a benchmark currency, and there would no longer be a big guy with a big stick around to make other countries think twice about doing crazy shit. Well, China, if you like their way of doing things. Other than that, sure, go for it.

I would press for a new Constitutional Convention sooner than I'd support secession.

Besides which, no leader on any side actually wants to secede. That's populist bullshit.

So what you're saying is, people allow themselves to spout wild and stupid ideas because they know they won't be followed upon? They want to push against the limits, and shifting them a little makes them feel happy and self-accomplished, but they'd be quite lost were those walls to suddenly disappear?

Pretty much.

That, or theyre trying to use the Overton Window.

I think it's less that they know that the ideas won't be followed upon, and more that nobody else wants the ideas to be followed on (for the reasons given by Fighteer) and will therefore stop them.