Do we believe in freedom and democracy enough, that a state where a vast majority of the people want to be free from the Federal Gov......should we allow that state to be free?or should that state be held in USA against its will? The civil war was about slavery, this is about freedom. I would be interested to see what people really think on this issue. My guess is this, in a book I read long ago...
Either Texas or California will be the first to leave the USA from a federal viewpoint, strictly for freedom and economics.
2007-06-26 08:18:01 · 15 answers · asked by captainamerica 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
So if a poll was taken and over 84% of the people in Texas want Texas to be an indepedant country do you think the USA should send in troops to "free" Texas from "itself", to "liberate" the people from themselves ???
What is the name of the book that had this story line, I cant remember it.
2007-06-26 09:07:37 · update #1
That is a very good point you bring up. My first reaction to your question was yes.It rolled through my head that if each state was their own country per say, then maybe they would only have to be responsible for "their" people. Homelessness and hunger could be put on the top agenda, also healthcare. Now on the other side of the debate, Staes that would become independant from the United States would lose government funding of childrens programs, ect. So I think that would be the biggest downside to the states independance. Would people really be willing to chance the loss? Could there be a way of working it out where every persons needs were met? Money is a big issue after all.
2007-06-26 08:30:59 · answer #1 · answered by janeyr 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The U.S. Civil War was not just about slavery. As another poster already said, it was just as much about states' rights to decide the law of their own land for themselves. I can imagine that if a state passed an internal resolution desiring secession from the U.S.A, only then would the federal government take it seriously. It might happen that would be put to a vote before Congress, similar to the way in which Quebec separatists were handled a few years ago.
My guess is that the U.S would not allow either Texas or California to leave without a fight, the rest of the nation is too dependent upon those states' resources for economic prosperity. Other states would throw follow suit and declare support and join sides, creating an environment favorable for another civil war.
The only thing close that I know about is that there had been talk of splitting Northern California and Southern California about ten years ago, but nothing even made it to the state legislature.
2007-06-26 08:29:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's covered in the Constitution:
Article IV
section 3
.......blahh, bla, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as those of the congress.
Which I take to mean all the politicians have to agree and you would have to try to form a new country, territories are still under the control of the U.S. congress.
Of course if everyone in the state voted to form another country peacefully it could work but chances are the federal gvt. would try to prevent it
2007-06-26 08:41:00 · answer #3 · answered by beesting 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that question is irrelevant at this point. The question isn't should they. The question is if they could. Civil War solved that one. It is a shame thought that the Constitution says we would over through the government if we didn't fell that the way they were doing things was in our best interest and yet Bush remains as the most powerful man in the US. Makes me a little sick.
2007-06-26 08:27:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes - it is the way it should be
Everything should be run at the local level in the States
Not run and controlled by the Feds who shouldn't have their noses in anything but Tobacco, Firearms and Alcohol!
They definilty do not deserve my hard earned tax money I give to their private banks every year!
Those bastards force us to pay for our own Country's further destruction on an annual basis!
It is time for the Revolution to begin
2007-06-26 08:46:42 · answer #5 · answered by scottanthonydavis 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The civil war was as much about states rights as it was slavery, don't sell out on that end. But that being said, there is nothing in our Constitution that says a state can not leave the union.
2007-06-26 08:25:01 · answer #6 · answered by booman17 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
that's as the two annoying because of the fact the view, in many circumstances espoused in this talk board, that China could grow to be a Christian state. faith in simple terms makes divisions in society. the faster human beings start to comprehend that each and all and sundry organised faith is a risky political gadget designed to create conflict and generate income for the already wealthy, the faster this international will grow to be a non violent and extra clever place to stay in. How each and everybody, on the instant, can discover it suited to be controlled by way of a myth perpetrated upon them by way of a hierarchy is thoroughly previous me.
2016-10-18 23:37:46 · answer #7 · answered by frasier 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure if all the rich people of America moved to one state in a super dooper attempt to never have to pay taxes. But soon after the state would be nuked and all the remaining survivors would be sent to a secret prison nicknamed club fed.
2007-06-26 08:34:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
From what I've heard lately, someone may attempt this soon. But it will fail. National Guard forces will quell the uprising, and the majority of people in the state will fear the economic ramifications, and oppose it.
2007-06-26 08:36:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe they should have the right to do so. However, I think you will find that the politicians in any given state as well as at the federal level will be very much in favor of keeping the status quo.
2007-06-26 08:26:53 · answer #10 · answered by John E 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋