It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What states do you think would secede?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 07:59 PM
I would put money on Texas, Hawaii and maybe Alaska.

Alaskan Independence Party

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:05 PM
My money is on Texas or Vermont. Still, the own two states that were nations themselves. Vermont is extremely independent, they have elected the onl socialist to Congress, Berine Sanders.

Plus, the links I provided earlyer in this thread...

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 08:11 PM
Don't put your money on Texas. It ain't gonna happen here, folks.

We've had various tinfoil hats try to do it (includng holding constitutional conventions and forming their OWN government about 15 years ago) over things that the ultraconservatives usually screech about: too much government, threat of gun control laws.

They had perhaps 300 supporters all total. They tried filing lawsuits against municipalities to get control of land, put up ads everywhere, and made a strong, visible, concerted effort for secession.

Nobody was interested. There's still no interest, either.

posted on Jun, 18 2005 @ 10:34 PM

Originally posted by FredT
Texas would be the first. Texans view themselves as Texans first. God knows we could do without thier politicians on both sides.

You know, someone was telling me that the Fourteenth Amendment reversed according to it you'd be American first, Texan second.

Here I'd always thought I was American first, Michiganian second...then Ohioan second.... *head spins*

Since becoming a member of the Constitution Party and talking to more people on the Internet, I've been learning a LOT more about the Constitution, and what people think happened, and what really happened....

Hey, you guys give us Ron Paul, okay?

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 03:24 AM
I think of a sane reason why any state would want to secede from the union. The USA is like a jigsaw puzzle lose to many bits and you no longer have a picture. States would have everything to lose and nothing to gain from secde from the union.

A second American civil war might make a great flim or book but I cant see it happening on plant reality.

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 07:33 AM

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Do you have any link to a reputable source quoting any major political figure in these states saying they want to secede?

Secession is illegal from the precedent of the civil war, and I don't see any way any state would seriously consider it.

Careful there DJ
, Actually the states of Texas actually has the right to declare it's independence from the Union at any time.

Short of an outright declaration of independence, one little-known option open to Texas might, if exercised, boost Lone Star power considerably. Under the terms of the 1845 annexation agreement, Texas has the right to subdivide into as many as five states anytime it chooses. Such geopolitical mitosis would give Texas eight more senators, four more governors, and several more votes in the electoral college.

If memory serves, Texas is the only state that has the legal option of declaring it's independence and becoming it's own nation. There maybe others but I am not aware of them off hand.

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:29 PM
Come folks, Yankees or Rebels makes no difference. Nobody will ever secede, times have changed, technology is on the side of the establishment. There is no place you can hide from them, they already have multitudes of secret military bases distributed in the country under the guise of FEMA.
There are foreign troops stationed right here on our soil (which is un-constitutional to begin with) to help with population control while our troops are spread all over the world.
Wake up and smell the roses, the NWO is already here and intrenched, and Americans are too apathetic and lazy to even care.
Not to mention that our education system raises liberal, sissy types who only worry about where their next free government handout comes from.
The kids coming out don't half even know who our leaders are (go listen to Sean Hannity's Man-On-The-Street interviews if you doubt me).
The only people who really seem to care are those of the older generations which are dying out.
Even our congress takes stands against our troops (listen to Dickhead Durbin).
Banjo Guru

posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 07:44 PM
Hmmm, if the government falls into the hands of the dems again, and we become a super power again, and have a good economy again, like we do with all dems, I can see the slave/jim crow/KKK/red states leaving. I mean, so what if every time a rep takes power we have a crappy economy, that is saved when a dem takes power. Look at the 1920-1945, dem in power, booming 20s, reps win, great depression, dems win, become thee super power, not a super power, but thee super power.

Or now, Reagan/Bush elect in power, crappy economies, dems win, greatest economy/surplus !EVER!, 8 months after a rep wins, crappiest economy since the Great Depression.

So, I can see dems winning, south whining that they can't be corrupt anymore since they don't hold power anymore, breaking away, north/west laughing at them, 2-3 years later south wants back in after the plagues, famine, economy crash, and the religous nutsos kill a few dozen million people.

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:22 PM
I agree, it is amazing, especially since everytime the dems take office they cut the defense budget, send all our jobs overseas, and tax us higher and higher to provide for people who WON'T work. And foreign aid........
Let's use our taxes to help those who can't work, quit giving money to terrorists, and defend OUR borders for a change.

At anyrate, this is still not about political parties, it's about liberals, who want to give everything away. I guess they economy might look good if you were on the receiving end of all the handouts taken from the working class and given to those who won't work!
By the way the bad economy after the reps took over is the direct result of the policies implemented immediately before Slick Willly left office.
There is a difference between a democrat and a liberal.
I can tell a liberal by the answer to one question;
Which is more important, morality or the economy?
Banjo Guru

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:57 PM
It would be interesting if all 50 states seceded from Bush

Seriously, I've heard it said that California, if it seceded, would still prosper while the rest of the U.S. would feel the impact economically.

One thing is for sure, the West of the U.S. seems very different from the rest of the country. If a breakaway nation were to form, I would not be surprised if it were made up of California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 07:37 PM
Well, I beleve Hawaii also has the right to secede based on when the federal gov. issued an apology to the Hawaiian people for overthrowing their kingdom; it was a clause included in the apology. I'll try to find the name of the act but I remember hearing about this.

To tell you the truth I could see Texas, Hawaii, New England, and the West Coast seceding given the right circumstances. They are all of a different mindset than the rest of the US states in terms of culture, politics, and ethnic diversity, and have exhibited independence from the fed. gov. in the past.

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 10:16 PM
"send all our jobs overseas"

Last I checked, Bush ordered companies to ship jobs overseas or will be killed........ IE tax cuts for people who go overseas while RAISING taxes for those who satyed..... IDK about you, but......

posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:47 PM
Secession is a tricky thing. The first issue which was mentioned by an early poster was that it is illegal. It is tantamount to treason, and instigated the Civil War (and it's ABE Lincoln, not Ape Lincoln).

However, several states put a clause into their constitutions that provide for secession from the Union in certain circumstance.

As also mentioned by a previous poster, Vermont currently has a movement to seceed.

I believe this is the only active movement in the country. I am not talking about passing laws in case the nation becomes corrupt (which incidentally IS a good idea). We all hope that will never happen of course, but it is certainly foresightful.

Vermont has an interesting history. Originally claimed by France, the state achieved independant status after the French and Indian war in 1777. I live in Windsor, the first official town in the Republic, which houses the historic Vermont Constitution House. Vermon was an independent Republic up until 1791 when it joined the United States as the 14th state.

However, other states when they joined the original 13 colonies (such as New York) put a special clause into their constitution that provided for leaving the union.

The current push for secession is called the Second Republic of Vermont (being that the First Republic was disbanded in 1791).

There is a whole set of people in support of this movement and they go around giving speeches and selling "Vermont Passports." They have had some very notable constitutional scholars supporting the validity of this movement.

Vermont, sort of like Texas I suppose has this image of being an independent state. It's interesting that the current bend of politics in Vermont with Howard Dean, Patrick Leahy, Bernie Sanders, and the turncoat senator Jim Jeffords focuses on a liberal slant.

In fact Vermont has historically been Republican. Calvin Coolidge, a Republican, is the only Vermont Governor to become a President of the United States. The fiercely independent farmers and business owners of the 1800's and 1900's has been forced to contend with the new breed of hippies moving in trying to live off the land and start organic farms after the 1960's. In fact these are the newcomers. There are fiercely battled elections in here, and the current conservative minority is still looking around for it's voice. However, it is anything but quashed, contrary to what Howard Dean may hope! Since Jim Jeffords is stepping down, it's likely that Bernie Sanders will attempt to run for his office, and there will be a Republican candidate as well. I predict that this is going to be a great race and quite likely a vicious and nasty fight, and may the best man win!

However, as much as they like to hype themselves, I don't see this happening unless there is some extreme circumstance like the Arizona bill. States depend heavily on Federal funds for highways and education, not to mention national security. I simply cannot imagine that the United States would ever agree to such a movement peacefully. I am not even sure that I would support it. It's an intruguing idea, but being part of a greater whole gives us strength. There is the famous flag "united we stand divided we fall."

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in