TexasCHLforum.com

Am I sore loser? You bet I am. Because it's not just losing an election, it's losing the Constitution and the country. Is that an extreme position? To those who doubt the seriousness of our collective situation, try pulling that head of yours out of the sand and look around. See, if you have eyes to see. I fully understand the sentiment behind secession. There's a lot of talk on this thread predicting the future outcome of secession. I'd like to focus instead on the reason behind the secession issue coming up. When the Constitution no longer draws respect from the Left (and it does not), then the political ties that bind this very large nation together are put under enormous strain. We are now straining against those ties, and feeling very rebellious against a federal government that no longer has the consent of the governed. I'd much more be able to get over this election if I believed the winners respect the limits of our Constitution. I'm not seeing it.

Good point Canvasbck. The secession talk is not happening in a vacuum, but rather is a reflection of good-hearted people expressing genuine outrage. In fact, I'd bet that we would much rather have a Constitution respecting government than having to embrace the tribalism that secession entails. But after the daily outrage of the Obama admin., you get a bellyfull. We talk of secession because we miss our country, and would like to see it return. What we have now is definitely NOT the USA we all knew.

Does Orwell's 1984 ring a bell?

VMI77, Good points. But just because collectivists impose outrages on their fellow citizens today, I'm not willing to follow their lead in terms of imposing secession on the unwilling. It would be justifying the means because of the ends. Further, just because tories were treated harshly during and after the Revolution does not mean we have to follow that example today. The reason is much the same as why we shouldn't follow the Omamanoids in trashing the Constitution. Consider the crimes committed in the South by carpetbaggers during reconstruction. Under color of law, and with self-righteous zeal, they treated their fellow citizens in the South like dogs. If we end up treating non-secessionists like post-revolution tories, what will we have accomplished? What will we have become? As bad as the current political situation is in the USA (and it is hard to imagine it being much worse), I'd sooner look for other solutions than secession at this point.

Recaf, Thanks for the thoughtful response. Nope, the founding fathers were not wrong. Thank goodness. But in 1776, there was no USA, only about 150 years of history as colonists / British citizens, living in America. Now, in 2012, the American people live in a country with over 220 years of independent history. My question is whether secessionists presume to impose their will on fellow Texans who might not wish to secede. Secession (say it happens, for the sake of argument) would entail its own set of problems in commerce and defense, for example. Do modern secessionists wish to impose those risks on the unwilling? And no, I'm not aware of anyone being forcibly removed from the former colonies at the end of the revolutionary war. But I am asking whether secessionists have thought about whether the unwilling should be removed, after secession. Either way, the secessionists will have put their fellow citizens to the very hard decision whether to renounce their US citizenship, or to voluntarily remove themselves back to the new USA. Should we put our fellow citizens in such a position? Especially in light of the history of post civil war America? And if secession were not a peaceful process, but instead led to hostile military opposition from Washington D. C., would secessionists care to be responsible for the damage to the unwilling and their lives and property? It's a lot of responsibility, and bears very careful consideration of alternatives prior to pulling that trigger.

A couple of points: When Jefferson penned the Declaration, the American colonists were not 100% behind the rebels. A significant number of colonists remained loyal to the British crown and were not behind the revolution. In today's terms, advocates of secession would have to deal with those in their own state that do not agree with secession. Are the non-secessionists to be dragged into rebellion against their wills? Will they be relocated to a northeastern or Pacific coast state?
Second, a good argument can be made that the war between the states (1861-1865) was fought, at least in part, in an effort by Lincoln to preserve the Union. Did the resolution of that war, in favor of the northern states and the Federal government, resolve the question of whether the Federal government should stand idly by and let individual states secede? Would secession be worth the nightmare of having Federal troops invade Austin to spank the secessionists?
In the end, perhaps a better bet is to stay put in the good old USA, and work united to replace the out of control Federal government with one true to the Constitution.