Quarter Of Americans OK With Seceding

by JASmius



To secede or not to secede - that is the question.

There is, however, a big catch:

Could the U.S. see a Scotland-like secession vote of its own? Nearly a quarter of Americans wouldn't have a problem with that, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. Some 23.9% of us strongly or somewhat support secession for our states, reports. That's compared to 53.3% who strongly oppose, or tend to oppose, the idea. The idea of leaving the country is most popular among Republicans and rural Americans in the Western U.S., and President Obama's policies are a major reason for it. But plenty of Democrats—some 21%—would also lean toward seceding.

"When I say secede, I'm not like (ex-NRA head) Charlton Heston with my gun up in the air … It's more like we could do it if we had to, and it's a way of getting Washington to listen up," says a Texas Democrat. Some 29% of Republicans, meanwhile, back the idea. "I have totally, completely lost faith in the federal government, the people running it, whether Republican, Democrat, independent, whatever," notes one. Geographically, Americans in the Southwest are most supportive of the idea, with some 34.1% of people backing it; New England is least supportive, at 17.4%.

First of all, secession goes back to precisely what the U.S. Constitution is: a contract between the States creating a federal government with specifically enumerated powers to which it was strictly limited.  Consequently, any State, as a party to this contract, that becomes dissatisfied with the arrangement to the degree that they want out of it does have the power, and is perfectly entitled to, do so.  Which is to say, by way of example, the Confederate States were entirely within their legal rights to secede from the federal union in 1861, for whatever wrongheaded reasons they did so, and the remaining, or "Union" States had no legal authority to deny secession to them.

But that brings us to the big catch I referenced above: in the run-up to the Civil War (or "War Between The States," if you prefer), the issue over which passions rose to the point of a hostile split - slavery - was a sectional one, with one region (the southern States) pitted against another (the northern States).  Thus, secession was heavily incentivized, not just in terms of there being overwhelming majorities in favor of it in certain States, but all those States being contiguous and sharing a common culture and more agricultural - and slave-based - economies.  Which, parenthetically, it's difficult not to think of today when the pro-amnesty crowd cites "cheap labor" as a justification for "comprehensive immigration reform".

None of those factors are present today.  Yes, there are "red" States and "blue" States, but even within them the split - which runs along cultural and ideological lines across the issue spectrum, not just on a single issue like slavery was - is not nearly as clear-cut.  Secession thus becomes a great deal more difficult as a practical matter, as it would quite likely entail mass emigration in both directions, economic upheaval, and all kinds of opportunity for violence and societal breakdown.  It wouldn't be a clear-cut conflict between two sections of the country, but a mass, confused free-for-all that would dissolve the country into chaos.

And that doesn't take into account the notion of secession FROM a State, as happened in 1863 when the pro-Union/anti-slavery counties of Virginia split away into their own State (West Virginia), a one-time event that would be all but impossible today, given the need for the State legislature to approve such a motion.  Which is why nothing has ever come of the several secession movements that have arisen in California over the past several years.  When one ideological faction dominates a State, they're not about to let their syphonable, enslaveable political enemies get away and reduce their power and influence.

And then there's, you know, the fact that the percentage of Americans who favor secession is a clear minority.  So this idea isn't going anywhere any time soon.

But it is noteworthy, nevertheless, that that percentage has grown as large as it has.  And it might not be that far away from a crystallization point where it gathers the remaining support it would need much quicker than anybody suspects.  Particularly in the wake of a cataclysmic event such as, say, an Obama coup de tat and refusal to relinquish power when he's constitutionally required to.  So keep this one filed away in your mental rolodex.  It may be revisited sooner than you think.