Nearly 1 in 4 Americans favor their state leaving the U.S.

[Shepherd]

Perhaps Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders will run for US President, with Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren as the Vice-President, or reverse the two roles. If not, perhaps the following from the Los Angeles Times indicates another way for the too-powerful empire to expire.
Shepherd

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2014-09-23_14-52-35-1.png

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2014-09-23_14-53-30.png

Nearly one out of four Americans is so fed up with Washington that they are prepared to not take it any more and would favor their state breaking away from the rest of the United States.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Friday, 23.9% of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away from the country. About 53% of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose secession, slightly less than the percentage that kept Scotland in the United Kingdom.

Support for secession cuts across many lines, the poll found, but the West and Southwest, where the vision of rugged individualism still draws praise, seemed more inclined to back separation than the staid New England area. Younger and poorer folks were more likely to want to run for the exit.

Politically, conservatives and Republicans seem to like the idea of leaving more than Democrats. Among people who said they identified with the tea party, (https://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/) supporters of secession were actually in the majority, with 53%.

Before you start thinking about flipping around the nation’s motto from E pluribus unum to E unum pluribus, consider that the United States has long been a country having to cope with sectional, emotional, economic, racial and gender splits..

Continues here (https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-secession-poll-america-20140919-story.html).

[Hotspring 44]

The caveat here is the way the question was asked:

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?”

"Peacefully"... ...Interesting concept but is that realistic?
There are so many variables in the real theme of things that succession would be quite difficult even if 50%+ wanted it.

:2cents:25% Vs. 75% with whatever margin of error exists in the poll is a no-go as far as votes are concerned.

[Shepherd]

Thanks, Soulin, for this research and additional information. Yes, "the way the question was asked," as you say, is crucial. With the U.S. now adding Syria to the countries it is bombing, "peacefully" is not very "realistic" or likely, unfortunately. There are, indeed, "many variables," as you say. Succession would be "difficult," but not impossible.


The caveat here is the way the question was asked:


"Peacefully"... ...Interesting concept but is that realistic?
There are so many variables in the real theme of things that succession would be quite difficult even if 50%+ wanted it.

:2cents:25% Vs. 75% with whatever margin of error exists in the poll is a no-go as far as votes are concerned.

[Valley Oak]

The reason why the word "peacefully" was used is because we already had a bloody civil war (1861-1865). Because the Southern states wanted to keep the institution of slavery, they decided to secede when Lincoln became president. Although Lincoln ran on an anti-slavery platform, he nonetheless publicly supported tolerating that barbarism where it already existed, but without allowing it to expand to new territories and states. The South would have nothing of that so they organized, constituted the United States Confederacy, and stupidly started the civil war by firing on Fort Sumter in 1861. Don't take my word for it; you can look it up for yourself.

Another important reason why the South seceded was because of the mistaken notion that the US Constitution gave more authority to the state governments than what the Magna Carta really gives them. Many people back then even believed that the states' rights granted by the federal Constitution were even GREATER than that of the federal government, a clear misconception. That would be the very definition of a true confederacy, which is what the Southerners founded before going to war. This is also the ideological beginnings for the Libertarian Party today, which is a delusional political grouping based on theoretical fallacies and lies. The two most prominent men of the Libertarian ideology today are Ron Paul and his son, Rand Paul, both from the South; this is not a coincidence. The ideological inspiration for these two men is inextricably tied to the Confederacy, slavery, and the Civil War.

Today, however, is a completely different story. Slavery has been abolished (although we could use a Marxist analysis to argue otherwise). The states' rights debate, although not completely settled, is largely contained by court decisions and a growing public knowledge of how the US Constitution and our political institutions function. The day has come to seriously ask ourselves if we should allow for secession if that is what a region or a state wants to do. I personally would strongly support the right of areas and states in the US to secede from the Union today. It would be a HUGE advantage to the more progressive community in the US. We wouldn't have to finance the poorer, ignorant Southern states and at the same time not have to deal with their religious fanaticism, bigotry, misogyny, racism, antisemitism, discrimination, anti-abortionist, intolerant, homophobic, jingoist stupidity, which holds back the entire country. If we want to stay ahead of China we could start by getting rid of the secessionist Southerners.

BTW, the correct word is "secession," not "succession." I hate to be a stickler about this but I can't take part in this thread and not say anything about it:

noun: secession; plural noun: secessions


the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state."the republics want secession from the union"historical
the withdrawal of eleven southern states from the Union in 1860, leading to the Civil War.

Secession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSecession&ei=K_siVLDPG8bhoATU7YHYAQ&usg=AFQjCNFK5XfyuHZc2ZdVUYk9Kw-ce7FLJw&bvm=bv.76180860,d.cGU)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Versus "succession:"

noun: succession; plural noun: successions


a number of people or things sharing a specified characteristic and following one after the other.
"she had been secretary to a succession of board directors"



a group of strata representing a single chronological sequence.
the action or process of inheriting a title, office, property, etc.
"the new king was already elderly at the time of his succession"

[Hotspring 44]

Edward Mendoza, :Thanks:, My spelling is not very good to say the least.

Sometimes my spelling is so off that the spell checker gets "confused" and gets all but the actual word I am trying to use, and other times I just overlook the spell checker's output even though I picked that word:crazysmile:.



BTW, the correct word is "secession," not "succession." I hate to be a stickler about this but I can't take part in this thread and not say anything about it:

noun: secession; plural noun: secessions


the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state."the republics want secession from the union"historical
the withdrawal of eleven southern states from the Union in 1860, leading to the Civil War.

[podfish]

The reason why the word "peacefully" was used is because we already had a bloody civil war (1861-1865). Because the Southern states wanted to keep the institution of slavery, they decided to secede when Lincoln became presidentwait a second, didn't we learn from a different post that slavery wasn't a factor, and was in fact on its way out?? There's little in the history of the Reconstruction that makes one think the South would have continued treating their slaves so poorly.

but anyway, it's looking like peaceful secession (!) is a possible trend of the not-too-far-off future. I certainly don't remember any until post-breakup Eastern Europe. Even before that era, conquest was getting more rare and peaceful unification was becoming more common. Now, maybe violent revolution will become more rare and peaceful dissolution will start to happen. Look how fast we've gone from having severe anti-gay laws to having the courts throwing out obstacles to gay marriage. Change can come quickly.
Maybe the time is fast coming for looser political unions. It seems reasonable that the forces of globalization, which operate far below the level of nation-states, will start making them fairly obsolete.
If/when that happens, I think the unintended consequences will be absolutely fascinating to see.

[Valley Oak]

Excuse me, but the notion that slavery had nothing to do with the civil war is beyond delusional. Whoever makes such preposterous statements is either ignorant or lying.

And what is this additional and equally reprehensible notion that American slave owners treated or were going to treat their property as human beings? Please, reading such dribble makes me want to vomit. Anyone going around spreading such poisonous assertions needs a thorough education to replace all of the ignorant brainwashing they received from their family and community, where they were raised. And if they arrived at such gargantuan lies and misinformation on their own, worse for them and the rest of us.


wait a second, didn't we learn from a different post that slavery wasn't a factor, and was in fact on its way out?? There's little in the history of the Reconstruction that makes one think the South would have continued treating their slaves so poorly.

Excellent observations! The world is changing. As history progresses, we reach a gradually better civilization, the new civilization has a different point of view and nothing from the old ways is off the table for reform. People are taking the destiny of their lives more and more into their own hands and becoming their own masters. And the societies that we are living in are becoming hyper sophisticated and gradually more capable of astonishing changes that were neither possible nor desirable just one or two generations ago.

Imagine going back in time to the 1960s, in a room full of radical students and protesters, and telling them that they should also support gay marriage and a list of other changes. What would their reaction be? I wouldn't be surprised if many or most of them would put you down verbally.

The last part of your post, regarding corporations and governments, reminded me of the movie, "Rollerball," with James Caan, a futuristic dystopia where corporations have completely taken over the world. I wish the movie had gone much further into the detail and history of how that is to come. All I remember were a few, scarce words about the "corporate wars." Nations and democracies had ceased to exist entirely. A corporate executive can take your wife away from you and marry her for himself if he desires her:
Rollerball -- Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollerball_%281975_film%29)


but anyway, it's looking like peaceful secession (!) is a possible trend of the not-too-far-off future. I certainly don't remember any until post-breakup Eastern Europe. Even before that era, conquest was getting more rare and peaceful unification was becoming more common. Now, maybe violent revolution will become more rare and peaceful dissolution will start to happen. Look how fast we've gone from having severe anti-gay laws to having the courts throwing out obstacles to gay marriage. Change can come quickly.
Maybe the time is fast coming for looser political unions. It seems reasonable that the forces of globalization, which operate far below the level of nation-states, will start making them fairly obsolete.
If/when that happens, I think the unintended consequences will be absolutely fascinating to see.
28237

[podfish]

Excuse me, but the notion that slavery had nothing to do with the civil war is beyond delusional. Whoever makes such preposterous statements is either ignorant or lying.

And what is this additional and equally reprehensible notion that American slave owners treated or were going to treat their property as human beings? Please, reading such dribble makes me want to vomit. Anyone going around spreading such poisonous assertions needs a thorough education to replace all of the ignorant brainwashing they received from their family and community, where they were raised. And if they arrived at such gargantuan lies and misinformation on their own, worse for them and the rest of us.They don't have to arrive at them on their own. There've always been attempts at whitewashing history and the motivations behind events. Andrew Napolitano's book, recently touted on Fox News, is just the latest that tries to remove the racist stigma from Southern history. It's easy to find analysis of this online - this from PBS is good (https://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/04/12/135353655/slavery-not-states-rights-was-civil-wars-cause). It's also easy to understand why people who share the goals of some political/social movements don't want to accept the moral context from which they rose. One thing the internet and rise of cable broadcasting has made pretty clear - we're all incredibly susceptible to accepting information that confirms our biases and beliefs. I'm sure we all also think we're good at overcoming those biases - but it's also clear that most people are mistaken about that.

[podfish]

The last part of your post, regarding corporations and governments, reminded me of the movie, "Rollerball," with James Caan, a futuristic dystopia where corporations have completely taken over the world. one of my favorite books is "Stand On Zanzibar" by John Brunner. It was written in the late 60s. In it he has a George Carlin / Marshall Mcluhan character who very entertainingly anticipates a lot of the forces that have shaped our society since then.

[Sara S]

My favorite film about the corporatization of the country is "War, Inc."