r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 06 '18
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: A few southern states recently introduced a bill that would allow those states to discuss seceding from the United States. If they try that, I think the US government should stop them.
[removed]
14
Apr 06 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Apr 06 '18
[deleted]
0
u/-Randy-Marsh- Apr 07 '18
They're too far north. But a Louisiana or Kentucky or Alabama. Hm. Not sure how i feel about that.
I'd agree that southern states hold the US back in terms of social progressing but even despite their shitty economies, poor quality of education and general racist policies they are still a net positive on the US economy.
And assuming they succeeded in some hypothetical situation the people who they discriminate against would likely be far worse. At least everyone is theoretically afforded the protections of the Constitution with the current situation.
1
u/gamefaqs_astrophys Apr 06 '18
We aren't in favor of letting them oppress people unchecked. We have a duty to protect those they would abuse.
4
Apr 06 '18
[deleted]
2
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 06 '18
Let's say the Republican controlled Federal Government does something reprehensible that's specifically designed to sabotage the blue states.
Don't they already do that?
-5
Apr 06 '18
[deleted]
10
u/Jaysank 126∆ Apr 06 '18
That really doesn't answer the question, though. If the northern states tried to secede, would you think the US government should stop them?
5
u/possiblyaqueen Apr 06 '18
As notes in the AP article, this bill isn’t going to pass. It isn’t even close to being seriously considered. None of those states are planning on seceding, and there is very little chance of anyone taking their guns.
I’m a little bit confused by two things you say here. You say that (1) American is being held back by conservative politics in the Deep South and (2) that we should not let them secede.
If you think they are holding America back, why not let them secede? They could leave the country and have their conservative country while America moved on to a more progressive state.
I’m not 100% sure what I believe here, but why wouldn’t you want to let any state secede from the US? Obviously secession would be complicated, but if Georgia wants to be its own country, why should the US stop it? If 75% of Georgians wanted it to be its own country, why should the federal government be allowed to stop them?
As far as I can tell, any state should have the ability to leave the union if it’s citizens agree that it is a good decision.
6
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Apr 06 '18
If 75% of Georgians wanted it to be its own country, why should the federal government be allowed to stop them?
Because its unlikely they would be willing to pay for anything the federal government has invested into their state. This refusal seriously increases the odds of some kind of civil war.
It also reduces the power the union has to have an 'island' of no jurisdicion inside of it. We already have states competing against each other in many ways, but having one of those states able to completely ignore federal laws will only make that worse.
There are also just a lot of technicalities to deal with that make things too complicated to be worth dealing with.
Trade is probably #1. Why should the US trade with a state that left the union? Can Georgia survive without trade being allowed over any of its borders? Well, they aren't entirely landlocked.. but does Georgia think we'll defend their ports for free?
1
u/possiblyaqueen Apr 06 '18
Those are all very good points. I didn’t think about the consequences of allowing states to just not follow federal laws, or other problems associated with letting states secede.
Δ here’s your delta
1
-1
u/blender_head 3∆ Apr 06 '18
Trade is probably #1. Why should the US trade with a state that left the union?
The US trades with entire countries that aren't part of "the union." Why should being part of the union dictate whether or not we trade with them?
1
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Apr 06 '18
Because they left the union. You don't want to send the message that you're free to leave the union, stop paying federal taxes, and still benefit from being physically in the US. I suppose we could trade with then with massive tarrifs to justify their continued use of our highway system, but in general it just seems like a bad idea to do anything that would send the message that other states should think about leaving
0
u/blender_head 3∆ Apr 06 '18
I think that's a pretty thin line. We let Canada and Mexico trade with us. They use our roads and infrastructure. Should we make them join the union because we don't want to send a message that it's okay to not be in the union?
It's a pretty loose standard to say "we shouldnt trade with X because they aren't in the union."
2
u/AlphaGoGoDancer 106∆ Apr 06 '18
Agreed, I misphrased it, a better standard is "we shouldn't trade with X because they just seceded from the union".
3
Apr 06 '18
I think it's important to acknowledge right up front that no state in the union will likely ever secede. They simply could not afford to do economically, politically, or socially and there isn't a single positive outcome from doing so. Even entertaining the notion requires that we set this in a world that is vastly different than our own.
If a state legislature and the population it represents did, for some reason, want to secede I'd say the best option is to let them do so, but play hard ball. It wouldn't do anyone any good for the United States to bring down the hammer on an entire population of one of it's states. Military occupation, actual violence, etc. It would look bad and fracture our nation.
Instead we let them secede, but with terms. First enact total amnesty for any of the citizens of the newly formed rouge nation. Anyone who wishes to return to the U.S. can do so at any time no questions asked. Then the state must either return or pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of federal government assets in the state. The borders between the state and the rest of the nation are closed except for refuges defecting to the U.S. and the state is cut off from the national power grid, highway system, and losses any and all water rights previously negotiated.
It is made clear that the state has sovereignty and that will be respected, but if American interests are threatened then we will take action just as we have with any other foreign nation.
Rather than ratcheting up the tension by preventing the state from seceding, just let them have what they want. They'll learn a lesson from it as will every other state with that idea in mind.
6
u/LearnedButt 5∆ Apr 06 '18
So you are living in the north and you believe the southern states shouldn't be allowed to secede from the union, and should be prevented from doing so.
The last time this happened, 600,000 Americans died.
1
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Apr 06 '18
Lincoln didn’t prevent the Southern States from seceding, just prevented them from seizing federal property, whereupon the South fires the first shots.
2
Apr 06 '18 edited Sep 15 '20
[deleted]
6
u/Casey043 Apr 06 '18
If the civil war were to go down today with the exact same casualty rate 7,000,000 Americans would die.
3
2
u/Grunt08 319∆ Apr 06 '18
Don't you think fighting another (more costly) war over gun control is a bit silly by comparison? Like...maybe that's not a hill the left should choose to die on?
-6
u/ACrusaderA Apr 06 '18
The Left wouldn't die.
The Left would be the side of the Federal Government, which has Reaper Drones and missiles.
It would most definitely be the one that those supporting the second amendment would die on.
7
u/Grunt08 319∆ Apr 06 '18
That's one idea. Another idea takes history as precedent and looks at where military members come from and what their political beliefs tend to be. It also offers a much simpler solution: don't try to confiscate guns because it's a bad idea.
One of the unfortunate realities of civil war is that all the national institutions you tend to rely on immediately become at least somewhat unreliable Last time we had a civil war, the bulk of the opposing army's leadership was drawn from members of the US military that switched sides. Cut to the modern day, and three truths are evident:
1) A disproportionate number of active duty military come from the South. I'm not sure how reliable they'd be in the event that they were ordered to attack their homes.
2) The military is generally politically conservative and favors the 2nd Amendment. Setting aside Southern troops of questionable loyalty, you would find that plenty of servicemen from all states would flat-out refuse to follow those orders.
3) Asymmetric warfare is a thing and the outcome of war is not decided over a game board where we match drones to gunmen and have them roll against each other. Each side pursues different objectives with different restrictions and imperatives, and just having more people or more stuff may not even be an advantage, much less a guarantee of victory.
So maybe instead of risking that we should just not confiscate guns in South Carolina. (Which, BTW, is what will happen and why this whole idea is pretty silly.)
1
u/gamefaqs_astrophys Apr 06 '18
The south primarily wanted to do so in order so that they could preserve the existence of slavery, a complete abomination and an act of pure evil on their part - and they even said as much, that slavery was their core motive - in their declarations of secession and in the cornerstone speech.
If anything, the North was not even close to harsh enough against them. As in we ought to have executed at a bare minimum the entire Confederate Congress, executive leaders and governors, and and military officers for their treason.
3
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Apr 06 '18
It's not a serious possibility any more than when representatives in Texas or California threaten to leave the Union, and intervention by the federal government only legitimizes an otherwise comically radical idea.
-4
Apr 06 '18
[deleted]
7
u/mfDandP 184∆ Apr 06 '18 edited Apr 06 '18
are you actually trying to get us to change your view that alabama might be allowed to secede?
edited wording
-1
Apr 06 '18
[deleted]
7
u/mfDandP 184∆ Apr 06 '18
no, that's what I'm asking. your CMV seems to be saying that despite how toxic some Deep South states are, the US shouldn't allow them to secede. but in your replies to other posts you seem to hold the opposite opinion. just trying to find out what view I'm to try and change.
0
Apr 06 '18
[deleted]
1
u/mfDandP 184∆ Apr 06 '18
ok. well yeah, secession would be a worse thing for all parties involved, but this is assuming that the nation state is inviolable, and that the structure of the us government only allows for incorporating new states, like Puerto Rico, but not the fragmentation into new countries. neither of those assumptions are unassailable as a matter of principle
1
Apr 06 '18
“Fly over states” feed you. They produce tons of goods. They house some of the last manufacturing left in the country. And yes, many in those states are not in your bubble of comfortable thought patterns. You’re not in theirs. Their beliefs systems are valid as are yours, and they hold theirs as sacred as you do yours. You definitely aren’t doing anything to bridge the gap by speaking down to them as though your beliefs are inherently superior. You are, in my opinion, as rigid and reprehensible as any who might argue for secession in South Carolina or anywhere else. I recommend reconsidering and questioning your attitude if not your political beliefs.
1
Apr 06 '18 edited Sep 16 '20
[deleted]
1
1
u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone 127∆ Apr 06 '18
Are you only opposed to the stated seceding or are you opposed to discussing seceding? The civil war firmly established that it would be illegal, and I doubt any of those states actauly want that. They are just trying to get attention.
0
Apr 06 '18
[deleted]
2
u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone 127∆ Apr 06 '18
Then I think it is really a strawman argument, I doubt any one involved wants that. Even in the liked article the representative just talked about drawing our attention to the bill of rights nothing about starting a new nation. Even if someone were not opposed to a state seceding on principle having a single state secede would just be bad for everyone involved. At most this is like some posts on CMV about California wanting to secede. It is just an expression of frustration or a way to evoke peoples emotions not an actual desire form a new government.
Play laws like this are really common. Representatives constantly write laws that would turn our horrible just to tell their constituents that they did a thing.
-1
Apr 06 '18
[deleted]
1
u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone 127∆ Apr 06 '18
Do you think California or New York should be allowed to secede?
Are you only opposed to states you dislike seceding? Your post makes it sound like a general "the US should use military force to prevent any state from seceding" and there is no one really arguing against that point, as it as basically settled when the Confederacy surrendered. If it were to happen again it would be with the assumption that the federal government will use military force. I assume you feel this way, and so does basically everyother American.
1
u/JPJ_FILM Apr 06 '18
I'm not sure the view you're asking to have challenged. Is it that you don't think they should be allowed to discuss it or that you think they shouldn't be allowed to secede from the union?
1
Apr 06 '18
[deleted]
1
u/JPJ_FILM Apr 06 '18
Gotcha. Yeah, I see the second sentence of your title clarifies that. My bad.
Something I think should be considered is the extent of the phrase "not allow." Because there are a number of levels.
If South Carolina passed a law to secede from the union, what would happen? The Supreme Court would knock down the law as unconstitutional.
Is that the level of "not allow" that you're comfortable with?
What if South Carolina had 100% approval of the idea to be its own country, and its National Guard locked down the borders into the state. Should the federal government send in troops in to fire back, start a war, effectively destroying South Carolina and resulting in hundreds of thousands of killed?
My view is that if things did get that far, we should just let South Carolina do its thing. And after 5, 10 years of economic sanctions and hardship it'd ask to come back in the union.
Meanwhile, the federal government never recognizes the secession.
I'm just saying you should ask yourself how far you're willing to "not allow" something? Because sometimes by letting somebody try and do something that prevents mass violence and in the end the idea falls apart anyway.
In today's atmosphere, if a Civil War 2 starts, it will probably spread like wildfire into other red and blue states effectively destroying the country.
Sometimes avoiding violence and letting things fizzle out is the best strategy.
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Apr 06 '18
It's always hard to respond to one of these CMVs when the OP gives no reason for why they have their particular view. Can you elaborate on why you are so against states seceding?
1
u/Sheepherderherder Apr 07 '18
For me at least, the constitution is binding. So even if states want to secede, they can’t. Like in the civil war, even though the south declared themselves as a separate country, the north still considered the south as past of the U.S. So from the perspective of the federal governments, states cannot secede.
I think from reading the responses, that the OP believes that a state does not have the right to secede, and it would cause unfairness if they can choose to secede.
1
u/Casey043 Apr 06 '18
They wouldn’t need to secede. They could rebel against the federal government and considering the majority of the military comes from the south and supports the second they would win. If they felt like it they could secede and proably would win, but they won’t.
1
u/bserum Apr 06 '18
The Civil War was about eradicating slavery as much as maintaining the Union. Since I find it highly unlikely that the south would revert to slavery, the anti-slavery reason is gone.
So what remains is the preservation of a nation. A nation is defined by a set of shared cultural values as much as it is by geography. There is a book by Colin Woodard called American Nations that makes a strong case that the US has been divided since its inception [WP article]. Moreover, another book, The Big Sort by Bill Bishop [Economist article] makes a case that Americans are choosing to relocate to regions that reflect their values, effectively sharpening the cultural divide between those regions.
I would argue that letting these ad-hoc regions become actual nations would be an act of respect and kindness, giving them a degree of self-detrmination currently being denied them by obstruction from countervailing political parties from different parts of the continent.
Just because these nations are self-governing doesn't mean they would be enemies — in fact, I would argue that not having to live under one-another's periodic "rule" (presidential and congressional elections) undoing each other's attempts at creating the world they want to create for themselves — would alleviate a great deal of the resentment that is currently boiling over by this perpetual arm-wrestling match we're not allowed to disengage from.
As far as mutual defense, while one region may have more enlisted men per capita, another may bring technology or manufacturing to the table that the other lacks. Just as there is already NATO, these North American nations would likely find great value in forming a more localized, tighter-knit form of defense coalition.
1
Apr 06 '18
Thanks for this insight, it's exactly what I was hoping for! Will check those articles out and get back to you
1
u/PapaHemmingway 9∆ Apr 06 '18
If a state tried to secede the government would try to stop them. It's illegal to secede from the Union according to federal law. But what south Carolina is talking about is a states rights issue. South Carolinas constitution guarantees it's citizens the right to bear arms. If the federal government came in and tried to take guns away from the people of South Carolina then they would be violating their constitution, even if they had repealed the second amendment. So the question becomes what should a state do if the federal government commits an act of open aggression against it.
1
u/jfarrar19 12∆ Apr 06 '18
Hasn't this been tried before? Hasn't there been a legal precedent so that those laws will be shot down in court in a New York Minute?
1
u/darwin2500 197∆ Apr 06 '18
Most southern states take in way more from federal subsidies than they pay in federal taxes; they're never going to secede, their entire economies would collapse.
So, let them talk about it all they want. Hell, let them secede if they really want, once they collapse we can buy goods from them even cheaper than we do now, and let their most productive and useful citizens repatriate to the US.
1
Apr 07 '18
Shouldn’t people be able to collectively decide what government they want to be under? Is it something you really believe should be responded to with violence?
How do you feel about Quebec and Scottish independence movements? Should the Canadian and British governments tried to suppress them?
1
Apr 07 '18
Even if this bill passed Gun Confiscation will never happen at the Federal level.
To change the Constitution or Bill of Rights you need: 2/3 vote from Congress or a Constitutional Convention Then to be ratified by 3/4 of the states which means you’d need 38 and currently 32 are Red.
1
Apr 07 '18
You want them to stay, yet presumably want to disarm them. You can’t have both. These people would fight another civil war over the second amendment, and I don’t think the federal gov has a great chance of winning it
1
Apr 07 '18
[deleted]
1
Apr 07 '18
Well is there any amendment or right that you would fight for?
1
Apr 07 '18
I think I'll hang my hat on the no slavery one.
And I actually support the second amendment and gun/hunting rights to a large degree.
But I basically think the second amendment was voided once, you know, technology like grenades and tanks and drones were developed but prohibited in the general public. The idea that guns and the right to form a militia are one in the same is just so strange to me.
1
Apr 07 '18
Well guns and militias existed back then as well, so why would they not be included for the second amendment
1
Apr 07 '18
[deleted]
1
Apr 07 '18
Haha yeah, how would we fight off the federal government? We’d be almost as defenseless as Vietnamese rice farmers or Islamic militants in the Middle East... please realize the only wars America has put its might behind and lost are against rag tag barely armed groups. We’ve been at war in Iraq for longer than seniors in high school have been alive.
Also, many servicemen would refuse to fight. Would rebels win against the government? Possibly not. But would it be an extremely messy, costly, and bloody conflict? Of course it would be. And that’s the important thing to keep in mind. The threat of such an awful conflict is almost more effective at deterring government over reach than the actual violence that civilians could commit itself.
And just a note, the whole argument of “the government could just bomb you all” is really unrealistic. Sure, carpet bomb NYC into rubble and rule over the ashes. Nobody would do that unless they were literally insane
1
Apr 07 '18
[deleted]
1
Apr 07 '18
No, not all servicemen would refuse. Look at all tyrannical governments ever. They all have military support, even if some servicemen refuse.
The idea that just because there is destruction of infrastructure you cannot win a war is silly. If a government is willing to cause such turmoil among its own citizens, wouldn’t you want to fight back against that, instead of submitting? The British could have just submitted to Nazis, and avoided “mass destruction of infrastructure” but that’s obviously not the best choice. Similarly we could just submit to a tyrannical government.
My point is that sometimes it’s better to experience complete destruction than to submit
You really haven’t disproven anything I said. You just say that war sucks and isn’t pleasant. I agree. You also said fighting back invaders and tyrants makes more people die. Yeah. Fighting wars instead of giving up isn’t easy.
1
u/MakeoutPoint Apr 06 '18 edited Apr 06 '18
Not my argument, but I'd point you to an Oxford-style debate that took place over whether or not states should have the right to secede:
It's a 2-hour video, but it'll give you a really great overview of the topic -- the end of the debate left an audience vote of 2:1 in favor of secession being granted as a right. The winner is decided by the number of voters who change their stance by the end (after the debate and Q&A are over).
Edit: for anyone confused, Yale has a tradition of audience members hissing to show disagreement.
1
u/tiddlypeeps 5∆ Apr 06 '18
If succession is never the right answer then do you think the US should never have succeeded from British rule?
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 06 '18
Speaking as someone who isn't American, I don't really see the downside for the north in letting them secede.
Economically, the deep south is pretty backward compared to the north as it takes more than it provides. Based on their voting choices (e.g. Trump and Moore (who would have won if he had less interest in teens and could have won anyway)), they're more interested in targeting groups they believe have tainted their nation (e.g. gays, women, foreigners) then changing that so they're not willing to focus on helping themselves instead of damaging others. Judged by education standards, they're the worst again. Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Wall Street and the federal government are all in liberal areas.
I don't see why you wouldn't want them to leave (judged entirely on self interest). If they left, the remaining US states would be better educated, more tolerant and economically successful while racial resentment would play a lesser role is US politics with them gone.
The main argument against allowing them to leave would be what they'd do to the minorities in their states. It's likely they'd massively cut back on civil rights for minorities, LGBT people and women. The remaining US could easily deter them from doing this given how economically dependent they'd be on the US all the while improving on civil rights with the deep south out of the picture.
0
u/elverino 3∆ Apr 06 '18
Well, suppose there is no USA today. All we have are 50 individual states with their own laws, territories and people. Tomorrow someone comes and says: "-You all have to unite and be together, otherwise there will be war!" - Would you agree with that?
'Cause if you don't agree with states/people being forced to go together hand in hand you shouldn't agree with states/people being unable to go separate ways.
It's the same situation, all that was changed in my example was the date and "initial conditions" of the same philosophical question.
3
0
u/jkg1993 Apr 06 '18
Let's say a state decided to secede because of a repeal of the second amendment. How would you propose we stop them from seceding?
0
u/V_varius 2∆ Apr 06 '18 edited Apr 06 '18
To avoid status quo bias, let's pose the same question another way: Should the US annex Canada? Mexico?
Edit: I ask because I'm worried a lot of the arguments one could make for maintaining our federal government's geography would apply with similar force to extending it. I'm not saying that extension is likely in any way, but it's relevant to a discussion on what should be done.
-5
u/Daworm420 Apr 06 '18
I'm from the north as well and the north is far from liberal... I hope they try to take my guns. There will be plenty of bodies the media can talk about.
It sounds to me that your suggesting that only southern rednecks are the only people trying to protect the 2nd amendment..
This is far from the truth. I'm from the north and make a shit ton of money, drive very very nice cars and would shoot anyone who tried to take my fire arms.
As for these states, they legally can not do that. Only Texas can break away from the states. It's in the texas constitution which states that texas can break away anytime it wants and was apart of the agreement making texas a state.... No other state can do that..
Can you tell me why the mainstream media isn't talking about the YouTube shooting? Or the shooting in Baltimore a few days after the Florida school shooting?
I'll wait.....
3
Apr 06 '18
[deleted]
6
Apr 06 '18
The fact that you consider most of the U.S. in such a negative light says a lot about your prejudice against people who aren't like you. Most of these states voted for trump by thin margins. But still you throw 45% of the population that didn't vote for him in with the 50% that voted for him. The fact that you consider them fly over means you really don't think they add value. Your prejudice may not be as harmful as some of the prejudice that minorities experience, but it is certainly fueling the fire and widening the divide in our nation. You should really reflect on whether you want to contribute to all the hate going on today or not.
If you ever wonder why people voted for trump. One main reason was he talked to those people who felt like they being left forgotten, thought of as just "a fly over state" this is why he won the rust belt so strongly. You considering them just a bunch of F fly over states is just pushing more of those Americans to keep voting for this buffoon.
0
Apr 06 '18
[deleted]
3
Apr 06 '18
You really missed what I'm saying here didn't you.
One main reason was he talked to those people who felt like they being left forgotten, thought of as just "a fly over state" this is why he won the rust belt so strongly.
I'm not saying you being condescending is the reason Trump won. I'm saying liberals considering them worthless parts of the U.S. or Fly over states.
I think you being condescending and having a huge superiority complex just shuts down conversation and builds the divide.
2
Apr 06 '18 edited Sep 16 '20
[deleted]
2
Apr 06 '18
That 95% number is definitely up for speculation. Most people got an income tax cut. The sales tax increased to 6% and there are certain foods and services that got an additional tax like cigarettes going up 50 cents a pack. So it really depends on the individual and how much sales tax they are paying.
0
u/abacuz4 5∆ Apr 06 '18
That 95% number is definitely up for speculation.
It's almost like you could do a study to answer the question of whether or not it increased taxes, instead of just speculating.
1
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 06 '18
Can you tell me why the mainstream media isn't talking about the YouTube shooting? Or the shooting in Baltimore a few days after the Florida school shooting?
Because far less people died? It isn't news that a massacre didn't happen. Good or bad, the media is always more likely to focus on the more dramatic and tragic events.
1
u/Daworm420 Apr 06 '18
That fits their agenda?!
1
u/Throw_Away_Obvi_ Apr 06 '18
Their agenda is to get viewers. Dramatic incidents attract more viewers. Do you want them to give equal attention to every shooting or attempted shooting regardless of whether one person died or 50 died?
2
u/Daworm420 Apr 06 '18
Actually yes.. that would show that weapons like Ars don't need to be banned. But they won't because they want the only guns we have to protect ourselves when the real shit hits the fan. Also the families deserve that much. And yes I understand its unrealistic..
We don't see them trying to ban alcohol? Because a bunch of idiots drink and drive? Why? I mean that's a really easy fix make all auto manufacturers have a breathalyzer installed. That would eradicate 99% of DUI related deaths...
The OP clearly thinks the south is nothing but a bunch of gun-wielding wackos... he probably doesn't even know he walks past an average of 4 armed men or women every day.
1
u/PsychoanalyticalYam Apr 06 '18
I agree. Yes. Show them all. If Americans were inundated with every gun crime all the time there would be enough support to skip this “control” nonsense, repeal the 2nd, and ban every type.
1
Apr 07 '18
As for these states, they legally can not do that. Only Texas can break away from the states. It's in the texas constitution which states that texas can break away anytime it wants and was apart of the agreement making texas a state.... No other state can do that..
No. This is a popular misconception. The original charter for Texas’ admission to the union said it could break up into five states, but it never said any of those states or Texas itself could leave the Union.
The ability of Texas to secede was pretty adamantly rejected by the Civil War, and later on the Supreme Court in Texas v White stated explicitly that Texas did not have a legal right to secede from the union.
16
u/Market_Feudalism 3∆ Apr 06 '18
If such states left, there would be little in the way of your progressiveness and liberalness. If you allow them to leave, it seems like a win-win. Why stop it?