Right to Secede

[Acts 1:8]

I think it would cool to create a nation from scratch about 15 miles off the coast of the US. Someone with a load of money could have millions of tons of rocks hauled to some relatively shallow spot in the Atlantic and start piling them up... Or maybe some huge array of floating material that is anchored to the bottom somehow. The economy would be supported from fishing tourism, energy would be wind and sun generated, water by distilling it, food from fish and planted crops, and Internet, hmmmm, ahh whatever. hehee.

 

[Stratiotes]

Some surprising commentary on secession:

'Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right.'
- Abraham Lincoln, 4 July 1848

But that isn't the opinion he is remembered for of course:

'Abraham Lincoln, in order to maintain the unity of the United States...resorted to the use of force...so, I think Abraham Lincoln, president, is a model, is an example.'
- Chinese Premier Zhu Rongii referring to the secession of Taiwan, 8 April 1999

'urely that can with no propriety of language be called a Union when the only means by which the weaker is held connected with the stronger portion is force. It may, indeed, keep them connected; but the connection will partake much more of the character of subjugation on the part of the weaker to the stronger than the union of free, independent, and sovereign States in one confederation, as they stood in the early stages of the government, and which only is worthy of the sacred name of Union. ...The South asks for justice, simple justice, and less she ought not to take. She has no compromise to offer but the Constitution, and no concession or surrender to make. She has already surrendered so much that she has little left to surrender.'
- Sen. John C. Calhoun, 4 March 1850

 

[Stratiotes]

As an aside to this subject, here is an interesting twist on the idea:
http://christianexodus.org/

I can't say I am entirely in agreement but I can certainly sympathize with some of their comments.

 

[JGrubbs]

I am curious as to why they picked South Carolina? I would think they would pick a state like Alaska. Alaska is not bordered by any other state and would have it's own oil as well. They are also one of the four states that have passed legislation in opposition to the unconstitutional aspects of the U.S.A. Patriot Act.

 

[Major B]

Originally posted by billwald:
Agree 100% with Dr Bob. WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS . . . ."

Prior to WW2 a country generally needed a large army and population in order to exist. Since the H Bomb and the cruise missle, this is no longer true. Just as Col. Colt equalized individuals, the suit case a-bomb equalizes nations. For example, the USofA is paralyzed by the Moslem nations because they might have WMDs.

Well, actually, if we know that a country has a nuke or two, that is inviting preemptive attack. If you have one or two nukes, you can give me a very bad day. I have 6,000 nukes with very accurate delivery systems--I can insure you have NO more days.

 

[Major B]

Or, as we used to say in USAF, there are no obstacles, only targets needing higher tonnage.

 

[Stratiotes]

Originally posted by NetPublicist:
I am curious as to why they picked South Carolina? I would think they would pick a state like Alaska. Alaska is not bordered by any other state and would have it's own oil as well. They are also one of the four states that have passed legislation in opposition to the unconstitutional aspects of the U.S.A. Patriot Act.

They provide some of the logic for their choice on their page somewhere. But, it was basically that the state had to have a coastal port, have a relatively small population, and already have a tradition of standing up to the federal govt. There were other reasons - and certainly Alaska would fit those. The liberterians have picked NH for similar purposes:
http://www.freestateproject.org/

Had they chosen Hawaii, they might gain more of a following