American separatism

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-10-2007, 12:43 PM

So I was reading this article Arrest made over Cornish threats to chefs Oliver and Stein - Yahoo! News
about how Cornish separatists are causing trouble in England. This got me thinking about how every country on Earth has had trouble with separatists, Spain with Basques, England with the Irish, Russia with the Georgians, etc. It seems that people wanting to break away and have their own country is inevitable.

America, thus far, hasn't had that problem since the Civil War, I'm guessing because there isn't much history to rely on-- every separatist groups tends to point to history to show that they're a separate culture and whatnot.

So what about the future for America? If there's a lesson to learn from history, isn't it that a country as big as ours will inevitably have to deal with separatism? When will it happen? Who will want to leave?

IMO, I can already see tension between the "red states" and the "blue states"...they don't seem to have anything in common culturally and have vastly different ideas about economics, government, etc. Of course, there's also the anti-government folks and the white separatists. They could very well start acting up if we have a black president who they feel is trying to take away their guns or something.

Linzyhop · 07-10-2007, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

So I was reading this article Arrest made over Cornish threats to chefs Oliver and Stein - Yahoo! News
about how Cornish separatists are causing trouble in England. This got me thinking about how every country on Earth has had trouble with separatists, Spain with Basques, England with the Irish, Russia with the Georgians, etc. It seems that people wanting to break away and have their own country is inevitable.

America, thus far, hasn't had that problem since the Civil War, I'm guessing because there isn't much history to rely on-- every separatist groups tends to point to history to show that they're a separate culture and whatnot.

So what about the future for America? If there's a lesson to learn from history, isn't it that a country as big as ours will inevitably have to deal with separatism? When will it happen? Who will want to leave?

IMO, I can already see tension between the "red states" and the "blue states"...they don't seem to have anything in common culturally and have vastly different ideas about economics, government, etc. Of course, there's also the anti-government folks and the white separatists. They could very well start acting up if we have a black president who they feel is trying to take away their guns or something.

don't forget about those damned Vermonters....

Vermont Commons | Voices of Independence
In Vermont, nascent secession movement gains traction - Boston.com

Ardentfrost · 07-10-2007, 03:26 PM

This is one of those things that people can point to the seemingly craziness of libertarians...

The civil war and reconstruction largely squashed state's patriotism. The days of people referring to their state as their country (eg., the founders) are over. Generalizations might still exist, but nothing to the level of a state thinking is could or should secede. This is a big plus as far as stability is concerned, because, as pointed out, we aren't war torn and even groups of Americans with dissenting opinions can still be heard and play the game of democracy...

However, to gain that we lost something very valuable: the ability to keep the federal government in check via our state governments. A lot of people don't think this is any loss whatsoever, and WANT the stronger central government. However, looking at the changes at the federal level over the past 150 years (especially in the past 100) BECAUSE of the stronger federal government, it baffles me that anyone can say it's a good thing.

I'm not going to go through some huge incomplete list of what all they've done because we all know... any one of us could easily name 10 things the federal government has gotten away with in the past 15 years that we do not think they should have (originally I was going to say 5 years, but changed it to 15 to encompass Clinton's presidency). This sort of thing was what the founders didn't want... they wanted smaller more local governments to make a majority of the decisions so that they could easily be changed. Surely no one can say federal legislation can be changed just as easily... I mean, does anyone think the PATRIOT Act has any chance of being repealed anytime soon?

And if we did still have strong state and local governments, do you think that Congress passing something like the PATRIOT Act would fly? States would refuse provisions outlined therein. In no time it would be superfluous, having no weight in the country because the people in most states simply would not allow their local governments to comply.

But I'm not a proponent of disorder or war... I just think that without the strength of the states, the threat is gone. And without the threat, sure, we have less chance of having domestic violence on a large, organized scale, but we also have an increased chance of oppression from the federal level... oppression on our state governments to our local ones to us individually.

The trade-off, in my opinion, is simply not worth it. I admire those people in other nations that rebel against their federal oppressors. Even though people probably get hurt in their aggression, they are fighting for their own freedom.

Rouger2 · 07-10-2007, 03:44 PM

Nobody but the Indians have a homeland to fight for.

David Octavius · 07-10-2007, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

But I'm not a proponent of disorder or war... I just think that without the strength of the states, the threat is gone. And without the threat, sure, we have less chance of having domestic violence on a large, organized scale, but we also have an increased chance of oppression from the federal level... oppression on our state governments to our local ones to us individually.
.

You think if States had more power RELATIVE to the federal government there would be less chance of oppression? Maybe if the States leaders were from parties other than the same two major parties that run the federal government but its not.

They have a shared interest for the most part - you lament the loss of State power yet State power is greater today than anytime in our history (it is smaller in relative aspect to how fast the federal has grown) yet I don't many state governments doing a great job with the power they already have so what will more accomplish?

When it is all said and done in our republic, it is up to the people themselves via the ballot box to end ineffective or oppressive government, you can't pin your hopes on politicians that share the same parties and ideologies to do it for you.

Ardentfrost · 07-10-2007, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

You think if States had more power RELATIVE to the federal government there would be less chance of oppression? Maybe if the States leaders were from parties other than the same two major parties that run the federal government but its not.

They have a shared interest for the most part - you lament the loss of State power yet State power is greater today than anytime in our history (it is smaller in relative aspect to how fast the federal has grown) yet I don't many state governments doing a great job with the power they already have so what will more accomplish?

When it is all said and done in our republic, it is up to the people themselves via the ballot box to end ineffective or oppressive government, you can't pin your hopes on politicians that share the same parties and ideologies to do it for you.

Although I agree that modern state politicians are just propagators of the bullshit handed to us by the same two parties at the federal level, I disagree that it would be like that if states had the legal power to defend themselves against federal legislation.

Picture this: a gubernatorial election in which one candidate runs on a platform containing him not allowing federal warrantless wiretapping within the state. The incumbent would get slaughtered all because he was following federal law when his constituents did not agree with it.

Can this happen now? Of course not.

Another illustration of the lack of local and state government prowess is voter reactions to local and state elections. Voter turnout for those election would be absolute shit if they didn't also coincide with national elections

David Octavius · 07-10-2007, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Although I agree that modern state politicians are just propagators of the bullshit handed to us by the same two parties at the federal level, I disagree that it would be like that if states had the legal power to defend themselves against federal legislation.

Picture this: a gubernatorial election in which one candidate runs on a platform containing him not allowing federal warrantless wiretapping within the state. The incumbent would get slaughtered all because he was following federal law when his constituents did not agree with it.

Can this happen now? Of course not.

Another illustration of the lack of local and state government prowess is voter reactions to local and state elections. Voter turnout for those election would be absolute shit if they didn't also coincide with national elections

Don't get me wrong, I am a believer in federalism and that the States need to check the central government, but I just think the way it is now with the two major parties strangle hold on power and the electoral process that I would question the states intentions and motivations.

Back in the 1800s I believe the parties were much more decentralized into regions so though there would be the same underlying ideology, there would still be many differences based on the needs of the people in that region, plus the electoral process was more open, which gave rise to strong third parties (whigs, know nothings, free soil and the republicans before they became major) to act as an additional check. Now that the parties are much more centralized - thanks in part to increase federal power and control over the election process that has made it impossible for third parties to gain any significant power - these differences have dissappered for the most part and so has the power you speak of.

The federalism of today - if it ever becomes significant again - will not be the same as it was in the past because of the above reasons , there is no open electoral system, there is no proper regional representation, so what would we really be getting if we go back to it?

Ardentfrost · 07-10-2007, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Don't get me wrong, I am a believer in federalism and that the States need to check the central government, but I just think the way it is now with the two major parties strangle hold on power and the electoral process that I would question the states intentions and motivations.

Back in the 1800s I believe the parties were much more decentralized into regions so though there would be the same underlying ideology, there would still be many differences based on the needs of the people in that region, plus the electoral process was more open, which gave rise to strong third parties (whigs, know nothings, free soil and the republicans before they became major) to act as an additional check. Now that the parties are much more centralized - thanks in part to increase federal power and control over the election process that has made it impossible for third parties to gain any significant power - these differences have dissappered for the most part and so has the power you speak of.

The federalism of today - if it ever becomes significant again - will not be the same as it was in the past because of the above reasons , there is no open electoral system, there is no proper regional representation, so what would we really be getting if we go back to it?

The electoral process was never "open"... and for very good reason.

I agree about the centralization of the parties, and how that makes it difficult for third parties to penetrate their media bubble, however we've had a 2 party system since John Adams (the first one). Parties have dissolved allowing another party to enter into the arena, however the government has been bipartisan since very nearly the beginning.

I do think that reestablishing the powers of the states (and decreasing the powers of the federal government) would help our current situation in many ways. But I do not think it's possible to get to a point where the states are ballsy enough to threaten to leave the union again... those days are long gone.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-10-2007, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

But I do not think it's possible to get to a point where the states are ballsy enough to threaten to leave the union again... those days are long gone.

Doesn't history show that not only is it possible, but inevitable? When has there ever been a country as large as the USA which didn't eventually start to splinter?

IMO, we could get the point of separatism again if something drastic happens which makes people feel the federal government is seriously threatening their lives or well being. In the current environment, that's not going to happen...but let's say we have the Great Depression 2.0? Or a large scale terrorist attack which kills hundreds of thousands? What about an outbreak which prompts the feds to quarantine large areas? Etc...

Kytro · 07-10-2007, 10:06 PM

Nothing stays the same forever, but it is more likely that super nations will form rather than splintering as centralization leads to power consolidation.

Rouger2 · 07-10-2007, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Doesn't history show that not only is it possible, but inevitable? When has there ever been a country as large as the USA which didn't eventually start to splinter?

IMO, we could get the point of separatism again if something drastic happens which makes people feel the federal government is seriously threatening their lives or well being. In the current environment, that's not going to happen...but let's say we have the Great Depression 2.0? Or a large scale terrorist attack which kills hundreds of thousands? What about an outbreak which prompts the feds to quarantine large areas? Etc...

I think we could fail as a country even as large and powerful as we are after all the Roman empire failed from within. Bread and Circus was suppose to have done them in along with perverts for leaders. We seemed to have learned from them as there is always opposition to welfare and we are mostly still workaholics. What our government has to worry about, I think, is the morale of the average man. When the working man gets to the point where he does not care and doesn't try his damdest every day then the end will come. It may take a long time but it will come.

Ardentfrost · 07-10-2007, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Doesn't history show that not only is it possible, but inevitable? When has there ever been a country as large as the USA which didn't eventually start to splinter?

IMO, we could get the point of separatism again if something drastic happens which makes people feel the federal government is seriously threatening their lives or well being. In the current environment, that's not going to happen...but let's say we have the Great Depression 2.0? Or a large scale terrorist attack which kills hundreds of thousands? What about an outbreak which prompts the feds to quarantine large areas? Etc...

Don't confuse a nationwide rebellion with groups of people splintering away from a nation. We lack state identity now-a-days (in comparison to 200 years ago).

Given our current path, I certainly believe a rebellion is an eventuality. I don't foresee Vermont just up and leaving the union.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 07-11-2007, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Don't confuse a nationwide rebellion with groups of people splintering away from a nation. We lack state identity now-a-days (in comparison to 200 years ago).

IMO, nationwide rebellion is a condition precedent for groups of people to splinter away. So long as we have peace and order, nothing will change. But if the carpet is yanked out from under us to to depression, war, disease, etc., I think the conditions could be right for splinter groups to take action.

And I also don't think splintering away would take the form of a bunch of people issuing a news release saying, "We are no longer part of the USA." What would happen is people start doing things that disobey the feds, because of this, they get into armed conflict with the feds, Waco type stuff ensues, and it eventually boils over into groups trying to splinter away. Of course, that process can't fully unfold unless there's some serious general unrest happening in the country.

Oh, and IMO, the splintering won't be in the form of states leaving. Like you mentioned, state identity doesn't really exist. It'll just be groups of people who feel the federal government has gone too far. Maybe there will be such a concentration in one state that an entire state wants to leave, but probably not. I'm thinking more survivalists who never liked the government, state or federal, to begin with. Actually, there are groups of people right now who are armed to the teeth, forming militias, so that one day they can fight off the government.

Ardentfrost · 07-11-2007, 08:43 AM

We're saying the same thing at this point. I just take it a little farther in saying that having state identity would keep local governments honest which would in turn keep higher levels of government in check.