Discussion What do you think about secessionism (New England, Cascadia, Texas, etc.) in the United States?

[Actovania]

Considering the increasing polarization in terms of politics, economic development, culture, etc. in the USA, I have seen modern independence movements grow more popular in recent times, especially in very wealthy and politically homogeneous regions (New England, Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, less so California, Texas and Alaska) and want to know what people's thoughts are on these movements, especially if you are from the USA and live in a region or state with such a movement.

 

[Leiot]

I think it would be stupid for all parties involved. Mainly because of money. A lot of these states don't realize how much they get from the feds. Plus, they'd have to provide their own national defense and they probably couldn't do it. They'd end up asking the US or someone else to do it. Then they'd be at the mercy of whoever 'protected' them.

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

Is there any real support for any of these movements though? They mostly just seem like fringe movements to me. I live somewhere in the world where there's nearing 50% support for secession and it's still barely on people's minds.

 

[John Kramer]

Secessionism in the U.S., whether it's New England, Cascadia, Texas, or elsewhere, is an interesting idea but also a complicated one. On one hand, it can reflect frustration with the federal government's inability to address regional issues, especially when those regions have distinct political, cultural, or economic identities. For example, Cascadia is often tied to environmentalism and progressive policies, while Texas tends to lean into ideas of independence and smaller government.

That said, secession doesn't guarantee freedom from the problems of capitalism, inequality, or authoritarianism. It could just recreate those issues on a smaller scale. Plus, breaking apart the U.S. could lead to economic instability and power struggles, leaving ordinary people caught in the crossfire. While decentralization and autonomy can be appealing, the real question is whether those movements aim to dismantle harmful systems or just rebrand them under a new flag.

 

[PumpkinLatte1]

As a New Englander, at face value I really like the idea. But if it were ever a serious possibility, I would want to look further into the unanticipated implications of it.

 

[DarkRange55]

Succession of a state is not constitutional, thats what the Civil War was about. You abandon the Constitution and any of the rights bestowed upon you by it when you succeed from this country.

It's very complicated. You can't just leave like okay, bye. Talk about all the American currency in circulation in Texas or whatever state say State A. How much money is in circulation there. Military members or federal employees that are from that state that are working in other parts of the parts of the country, how do we handle these people? Let's talk about federal property. Technically a lot of the roads in a state are not state property. How does that work? And other property and things in the state that are owner by the federal government. Military bases, weapons emplacements, tanks, planes, national guard, items. How does that work? National parks and national monuments. How many people from Texas or State A are members of the NSA or FBI or CIA? What do they know about what is now a foreign country that they are going to be going back to to tell them about. It's not just as simple as just leave. Plus you break the entire union in total. But just as you have the right to succeed, we have the right to treat you as a hostile foreign country. And I support a blockade and I'm sorry I don't care. I'm not gonna play that game. If any state that succeeds is presenting a serious threat to the rest of the United States rhat they're no longer apart of - they're no longer apart of the United States. They have no rights under the Constitution of this country. They're a foreign country and by the nature of what they did they're a hostile foreign country. With implanted spies and nations living in out country as citizens its just not as simple as succeed. And it wouldn't be economically beneficial for any state to succeed on less than friendly terms and they wouldn't be friendly because if they were friendly they wouldn't succeed. How much federal funding goes to support the state institutions in Texas? Education, prisons, etc. How are they going to support that?