Peacefully Grant the State of Texas to Withdraw

The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government's neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it's citizens' standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.

The above is posted on the White House website. It needs 25,000 signatures for it to be addressed by the president this afternoon at 4:30 I was signature # 82,754 a few hours later that number had jumped to over 88,000 at this rate tomorrow it should reach 100,000+. People are tired of the direction the United States is heading, big socialistic government, same sex marriage, political correctness, etc. Whitehouse Texas Petition

SECESSION , A European View

Secession is a term used in political science to signify the withdrawal of a state from a confederacy or composite state, of which it had previously been a part; and the resumption of all powers formerly delegated by it to the federal government, and of its status as an independent state . To secede is a sovereign right; secession, therefore, is based on the theory that the sovereignty of the individual states forming a confederacy or federal union has not been absorbed into a single new sovereignty . Secession is a right claimed or exercised by weaker states of a union whose rights are threatened by the stronger states, which seldom acknowledge such a principle .

War generally follows the secession of a member of a union, and the seceding state, being weaker, is usually conquered and the union more firmly consolidated . Europe furnishes several examples of secession or attempts to secede: in 1309 the Swiss cantons withdrew from the Empire and formed a confederacy from which, in 1843-1847, the Catholic cantons seceded and formed a new confederacy called the Sonderbund, which was crushed in the war that followed; in 1523 Sweden seceded from the Kalmarian Union formed in 1397 of Denmark, Sweden and Norway; and in 1814 Norway seceded and entered into a union with Sweden, from which, in the same year, it attempted to secede but was forcibly prevented; Norway, however, accomplished a peaceful secession from the Union in 1905 and resumed her independent status; in 1848-1849 Hungary attempted to withdraw from the union with Austria  but the attempt was defeated; Prussia and other north German states withdrew in 1866-1868 from the German Confederation and formed a new one; Panama which seceded in 1903 from the Republic of Colombia .

But secession in theory and practice is best exhibited in the history of the United States . Most of the original states, and many of the later ones, at some period when rights were in jeopardy proclaimed that their sovereignty might be exercised in secession . The right to secede was based, the secessionists claimed, upon the fact that each state was sovereign, becoming so by successful revolution against England; there had been no political connection between the colonies;. the treaty of 1783 recognized them " as free, sovereign and independent states "; this sovereignty was recognized in the Articles of Confederation, and not surrendered, they asserted, under the Constitution; the Union of 1787 was really formed by a secession from the Union of 1776-1787 .

New states claimed all the rights of the old ones, having been admitted to equal standing . Assertions of the right and necessity of secession were frequent from the beginning; separatist conspiracies were rife in the West until 1812; various leaders in New England made threats of secession in 1790—1796 and 1800-1815—especially in 1803 on account of the purchase of Louisiana, in 1811 on account of the proposed admission of Louisiana as a state, and during the troubles ending in the War of 1812 . Voluntary separation was frequently talked of before 1815 . Two early commentators on the Constitution, S. T. Tucker in 1803 and William Rawle in 1825, declared that the sovereign states might secede at will .
In 1832-1833 the " Union " party of South Carolina was composed of those who rejected nullification, holding to secession as the only remedy; and from 1830 to 1860 certain radical abolitionists advocated a division of the Union .

But as the North grew stronger and the South in comparison grew weaker, as slavery came to be more and more the dominant political issue, and as the South made demands concerning that " peculiar institution " to which the North was unwilling to accede, less was heard of secession in the North and more in the South. Between 1845 and 1860 secession came to be generally accepted by the South as the only means of preserving her institutions from the interference of the North . The first general movement toward secession was in 1850. In 1860-1861, when the federal government passed into the control of the stronger section, the Southern states, individually, seceded and then formed the Confederate states, and in the war that followed they were conquered and forced back into the Union . So, in the United States, secession along with state sovereignty is of the past . From the historical point of view it may be suggested that neither North nor South was correct in theory in 1861: the United States were not a nation; neither were the states sovereign; but from the embryo political communities of 1776-1787, in which no proper sovereignty existed anywhere, two nationalities were slowly being evolved and two sovereignties were in the making; the North and the South each fulfilled most of the requirements for a nation and they were mutually unlike and hostile.

The above is from a European encyclopedia and it's rather enlightening and more or less accurate. I do however take issue with the comment that state sovereignty and secession are of the past as it seems that both are fast becoming important issues once again. The concerned citizens of the states are becoming alarmed at the heavy handedness and intrusiveness of the federal government in Washington city. The citizens of the states want not only to retain their freedom but regain the freedoms that have been lost over the past seventy years. If freedom can't be restored by the strict adherence of the tenth admendment then the only option left to the people is secession. The majority of Americans do not want to live under socialism nor do they want a dominant central government forcing unpopular agendas and programs on them. For every action from the federal government there will be an opposite and equal reaction from the states and Texas will lead this reaction.

Terrorism at Fort Hood

NEDERLAND, Texas – The Texas Nationalist Movement has expressed praise for the valiant Texas police woman whose bravery stopped the terrorist attack at Fort Hood Thursday, and re-affirmed that the organization stands “side by side” with the United States in the global war on Islamic extremism.

“Texas is known for the valor of its people, and on Thursday, officer Kim Munley added her name to the list of Texans who have faced evil and persevered,” Texas Nationalist Movement president Daniel Miller said. “Her courage and decisiveness in a tragic and confusing situation should be a shining example for all of us.” Miller expressed his organization’s condolences to those killed and wounded by the traitor/terrorist.

“We join our American brothers and sisters in mourning the loss of these fine soldiers and civilian personnel,” Miller said. “We pray for the swift recovery of those injured.

“Although our organization is dedicated to the peaceful separation of Texas from a United States government which has abandoned the Constitution, we will always stand side by side with our brothers and sisters in this war against the terror of radical Islamic fundamentalism,” Miller added. “Terrorism is an act of cowardice, and terrorism shall never deter Texas nor, we hope, the United States, from our roles as the defenders of Western civilization and culture.”

Daniel Miller is right on target, can you imagine how humiliating it must be for this Moslem terrorist to have been taken down by a woman? This Texas woman is no ordinary woman to me but is closer to a modern day Joan of Arc than anything else. She had been shot several time and the only thing she thought about was taking down this animal who was killing innocent people. I hope President Obama gives her the highest award that can be given a civilian. The Main stream "politically correct" Media still refuses to call this carnage terrorism. I bet you if it had been a Conservative Christian who had committed this act they would have branded it a terrorist act, on that you can be sure. But the FBI...why would they label Timothy Mcveigh a terrorist and NOT this SOB? All the more reeason for Texas to get out of the United States and become a Republic once again, at least Texans know terrorism when they see it and when they see terrorism they call it terrorism!

Tea Parties, Texas Nationalists may Join Forces

Some organizers of the Tea Party movement, dissatisfied with what they call the "hijacking" of many of their events by politicians with the Republican Party, have opened discussions with the Texas Nationalist Movement to possibly join forces for events in the future.

"Too many Republican politicians are getting in on the Tea Parties, and this movement was not intended to be a platform for them," said one Texas-based Tea Party event organizer, who asked tat he not be identified prior to an agreement. "We need to find candidates to run against all the incumbents of both parties and restore our government, and we're on the same page with the Texas Nationalist Movement in that regard."

Texas Nationalist Movement President Daniel Miller said he had not yet seen full details of the proposed partnership, but said the TNM and Tea Party movements share a number of common goals and his organization would be open to holding some joint events.

"The main thing for us is, we need to take back our government, and we can start by taking back our state," the Tea Party representative said. "People all over the country are watching what is going on in Texas, what Texas will do. If Texas is the only state we can take back, then let's do that and let's become our own country again."

Miller said his organization has no immediate plans for any statewide events at the moment, but "that can always change if Washington does something that needs to be addressed."

Daniel Miller is a very capable man and he has the plan to make Texas free. The Texas Nationalist Movement is in need of allies and holding joint activities with others with common interests would be beneficial. One thing the TNM needs to do is squelch those overly vociferous members who make statements that can be construed as wacky or too extreme they only scare people off. If they have certain opinions then they need to exercise self control for the sake of the movement but I'm pretty certain that Daniel is on top of this issue already.

SNP will let English keep military bases

AN INDEPENDENT Scotland would allow English military forces to be based north of the border after a UK split, says the Scottish National Party's defense spokesman.

Angus Robertson MP will tell the party conference in Inverness that the two newly separated nations would remain "friends and allies", so it would be "perfectly possible" to "share basing, procurement and training facilities with the rest of the present UK", even after Scotland had become a sovereign state.

The proposals appear to suggest that RAF bases, such as those at Leuchars and Lossiemouth, could be shared between Scottish and English fighter jets. It also opens up the idea of Scottish-based garrisons, such as Redford Barracks in Edinburgh and Fort George in Inverness, containing soldiers from both nations' armies. It may also mean that 45 Commando Royal Marines may be retained at its Arbroath base.

However, Robertson also says that an independent Scotland would reserve the right to "stand aside" from wars to which it was opposed. In recent years, the SNP has refused to support the war in Iraq and the Nato invasion of Kosovo.

He also asserts that an independent Scotland would have the right to remove Trident submarines from Scottish waters.

The plans were described as "complete fantasy" last night by Labour, which said the British government would have little desire to invest in a post-independent Scotland. The Conservatives claimed Robertson's plans had exposed how an independent Scotland would be entirely dependent on English co-operation for survival.

Meanwhile, military experts warned that Scotland would end up having to pay the former UK government to keep its facilities in Scotland.

But the SNP argues that its sharing plan showed that the "supposed disbenefits" of independence for the nation's defense was a "chimera".

Writing in today's paper in advance of giving The Scotland on Sunday Lecture at the SNP conference, Robertson argues: "On the basis of mutual interest, it is perfectly possible to envisage circumstances in which we share basing, procurement and training facilities with the rest of the present UK – our foremost friend and ally under all constitutional arrangements – in exactly the same way as defense co-operation exists across the Scandinavian nations."

Robertson is calling for a specific Scottish Defense Review, to go alongside the British Defense Review, to ensure that the country's defense policy "reflects Scotland's priorities and preferences". The SNP argues that a review would probably conclude that most Scots were opposed to the UK defence policy, including its policy of keeping Trident on the Clyde.

Robertson says that independence would ensure that Scotland would be able "to choose which theatres to be involved in".

Independence would also allow an SNP-led government to remove Trident from Scotland, he continues. "No independent nation of five million has nuclear weapons, and nor should we," he declares.

The SNP's plans for defense come as the party prepares to head to Inverness on Thursday for its annual conference, where it will increase calls for an independence referendum.

In an interview yesterday, First Minister Alex Salmond said his aim for next year's general election was to gain enough MPs to hold the balance of power in what many expect to be a hung parliament.

"There's a vast overwhelming majority of people in Scotland, regardless of political preference, who rather like the idea of the Westminster parliament being hung by a Scottish rope," he said.

Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy last night unveiled Labour's election campaign theme, which will claim that a vote for the SNP helps to install the Conservatives at Westminster. He said: "Labour's campaign – Vote SNP, Get Tory – will put this issue centre stage between now and the general election."

As for Robertson's proposals, military experts said last night that, while it would be feasible to imagine a sharing arrangement post-independence, there would be complications as well.

Colonel Bob Stewart, the former United Nations commander in Bosnia, said: "There would have to be a State of Forces Agreement such as there is between the UK and Germany (where British troops are currently garrisoned). In theory, it is possible for this to happen, but there are complications. Would Scotland be part of Nato, for example?"

He added: "It would all come down to money. If you wanted to keep English troops and bases here, how much would you be prepared to pay? The Germans don't want us to withdraw because British troops there substantially subsidise the local economy."

However, shadow Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell said: "An independent Scotland would have to rely on England's goodwill on defense and security."

He added: "Alex Salmond can't expect to break up Britain and have the rest of the United Kingdom dance to his tune. His defence policy doesn't stack up. It is fooling nobody and would threaten tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland. Alex Salmond needs to get on with his job in the Scottish Parliament, because he just can't cut it on the wider stage."

Meanwhile, a senior Scotland Office official described the proposals as "complete fantasy", claiming that after independence the government south of the border would have no incentive to invest or be sited in a foreign country such as Scotland.

The source said: "Shipbuilding on the Clyde would go – the Royal Navy would not give contracts to a foreign country. This would be another hammer blow to Glasgow from the nationalists. In all, 20,000 defence-related jobs would be at risk. In Morayshire, 2,000 jobs would go – no Trident, no Nimrod, no Kinloss."

As for the plans to scrap Trident, the source added: "In a world in which rogue nations are seeking nuclear weapons, it is madness for the SNP to suggest that Scotland should be defenceless. The majority of Scots have consistently rejected the policies of pacifism and one-sided disarmament set out by Angus Robertson."

So what does this article have to do with Texas? A lot really, by observing the complicated process that other fledgling nations face as they secede we can see what Texas has to face when she leaves the United States. It is of course much easier to join a union than it is to leave one. It is the duty of every Texas Nationalist especially those in leadership watch very closely what other break-away republics do and to note well how they accomplish their goal. Whether Texas would allow the United States to retain bases on Texas soil would be up to the ploiticians but as far as self defense I believe that Texas would be able to hold its own better than most countries and federal troops would not be needed to protect our homeland. God Bless Texas!.

Economy, War, Anger Fuel US Secession

WASHINGTON CITY – Disgruntled by high taxes, wars in far-away countries, bailouts for fat-cat bankers, a growing number of Americans are pushing their states to defy federal laws and some are advocating secession.

"Our government is operated and owned by Wall Street and corporate America,” Thomas Naylor, a retired economics professor who heads the Second Vermont Republic movement, told Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Sunday, October 11.

"The empire is going down -- do you want to go down with the Titanic, or seek other options while they are still on the table?"

The US fell into the grip of the worst economic crisis since 1930s in September after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank, and the financial woes of a number of Wall Street giants.

The fallout has developed into a full-fledged recession, threatening personal finances as home prices fall, retirement funds shrink and access to credit and jobs evaporate.

The recession, government growth and the explosion in federal spending are infuriating many Americans.

"The US government has lost its moral authority," says Naylor.

Twenty-five states have passed laws preventing the 2005 Real ID Act, which sets federal standards for identification cards, from being implemented.

Also, 13 states have legalized marijuana for medical use, in defiance of federal anti-drug regulations.

As tensions grow over health care reform, 15 states are pushing laws that would exempt them from federal health care regulations.

Montana and Tennessee have even passed laws exempting weapons and ammunition produced in their states from federal regulations.

Secession
"[Secessionists are] a minority voice whose time has come because of one thing: technology," Labbe insists.
Some argue that secession is the cure for America’s problem.
"There is more talk today about nullification (invalidating federal laws) and secession... than any time since 1865," said Kirkpatrick Sale, who heads the South Carolina-based Middlebury Institute, which studies separatism, secession, and self-determination.

Sale says there are active secessionist groups in at least 10 US states, including Vermont, Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, and the US commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

"Secession is our only answer because our federal government is broken and cannot be repaired in the current political system," agrees Dave Mundy, a spokesman for the Texas Nationalist Movement.

The US is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.

It was founded on July 4, 1776, by thirteen British colonies that defeated Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War.

But Texas was an independent republic from 1836 to 1845, as was Vermont from 1777 to 1791.

Texas last seceded in 1861, when it joined 10 other southern states to form the Confederate States of America.

The Civil War soon broke out, and four years later, the union was restored.

J.R. Labbe, editorial director at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper, doubts secessionists can gain grounds.

"[They are] a minority voice whose time has come because of one thing: technology," she told AFP.

"Digital cameras that can upload images and soundbites -- and 24/7 news channels that are always looking for the most bizarre clip they can find -- have given them a much broader audience than they, or Texas, deserve."

Lyn Spillman, a specialist on nationalism at Notre Dame University, agrees.

"Considered generally, secession movements -- which are quite common in American history -- are extremely unlikely to have significant political consequences."

But Sale contends that a collapse of the dollar and anger over foreign wars, combined with calamitous climate change triggered by global warming, could push communities towards energy, water and food independence.

"A conjunction of events over the next few years might increase the talk about secession."

Who's to say whether an idea deserves or doesn't deserve a broader audience? Only the people do and not some armchair political analyser. To say that Texas doesn't deserve the media exposure that the Texas Nationalists are receiving is wrong. What the world is seeing is a seedling which is beginning to sprout and grow. So Texas Nationalism is extremely unlikely to have any political consequence? That remains to be doesn't it? Even those Texans who are not secessionists are enchanted with the idea of a Texas Republic and once they begin to realize that Texas and her citizens would be better off as a separate naion then they will do what is necessary....go to the polls and vote for independence.

The Right of Secession

The Inalienable Right of Secession
by Clifford F. Thies

The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America invokes the self-evident truths that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that governments are formed to protect these rights and gain their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that when a government becomes abusive of these rights, it is the right — no, it is the duty — of the people to alter or abolish that government. To say governments were formed to protect the rights of men would be historically incorrect. Almost all governments were formed by ruthless men exerting their will over others through the use of force.

Some governments, over time, evolved toward the rule of law, perhaps only because their rulers saw that this would sanction their own continued enjoyment of the wealth that they possessed. In some instances, this evolution involved one or more "revolutions" in which those who were governed were able to better establish the rule of law.The language of the Declaration should not be construed as an argument about the historical origins of government but, rather, as what would be true and just to an enlightened person, namely, that as persons and as communities of persons, we have the right and the duty to alter or abolish governments that become abusive of our rights.

As Benjamin Franklin once put it, "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."The concept of an inalienable right of secession was not original to the American Revolution. It can be traced to the scholastics, to Reformation politics, and to the most ancient Greek and Hebrew writings. Without going into a dissertation on the subject, let me simply point to the flag of the state of Virginia, which was designed by Thomas Jefferson. It depicts a female warrior (Athena) standing atop a slain tyrant (Zeus). According to legend, Zeus, the greatest and most terrible of the gods, was supposed to be the god of law, yet he was himself lawless. When he heard that he would sire a child who would destroy him, he swallowed his wife whole to prevent it. But the child grew within him and then burst from him fully grown.

This child was Athena, the goddess of victory, liberty, and peace. And, she did indeed slay her father. It should be easy to see, in this legend, how the rule of law might be established from a government formed through the use of force.Now, does a massive increase in taxes, in spending, and in the federal deficit constitute such an abuse of the rights of men as to justify secession under the doctrine of an inherent right to secede? I don't think so. Ask me about the inherent right to secede when the government starts to restrict our freedom of speech, to shut down the independent media, to confiscate our guns, and to take away our children.

The International Law of Secession

The international law of secession is in the process of emerging at this very time. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates that all people have the right to a country. A corollary of this is that no people should long be kept in nationless status, e.g., the Palestinians. A further corollary of this is that no people should long be kept in any subjugated status, such as by being citizens or subjects of a country from which they are alienated.Now, as a practical matter, consideration has to be given to whether an identifiable people exist in an identifiable place. At least, this is the current thinking. But, if these several elements come together: an identifiable people in an identifiable place that grouse under the subjugation of the larger nation, there is a growing consensus that this people and place can be severed from the larger nation, even by rebellion and with support from outside the larger nation.

East Timor, Eritrea, and the devolutions of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (including the ongoing situation in Kosovo) illustrate the development of the international law of secession.Turning to the United States, it is now well established that the country consists of so many "red" (Republican) and "blue" (Democrat) states, along with a few "purple" (battleground) states. Even in a so-called landslide, like 2008, only a few states "flip" from Republican to Democrat, and these states go from close Republican to close Democrat. Furthermore, the whole purpose of elections has become to decide whether Democrats get to raise taxes on Republicans while adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax so as to minimize the impact on themselves, and whether Democrats get to force acceptance of gay marriage onto Republicans or whether Republicans get to force unwanted pregnancies onto Democrats. In other words, there no longer is any pretense of federalism in which domestic policy is left to the states of the Union.

Under these conditions, it can be argued that, were either party to fall into permanent minority status, and the other party to establish hegemonic control over the so-called federal government, the people in the other party could be said to be an alienated, identifiable people in an identifiable place, and could assert a right to secede under emerging international law.The argument for secession under emerging international law might be strongest for Alaska. Geographically, the place is disjoint from the other states of the Union, making it an identifiable place. Furthermore, under their state constitution's explicit right of privacy, possession of small amounts of marijuana is a right; yet, the so-called federal government imposes the costs of its war on drugs onto the citizens of Alaska.

Furthermore, the people of Alaska have been long frustrated in developing their natural resources because of the opposition by majorities in the "lower 48." Indeed, as a separate nation, Alaska might be the freest place in the world, with zero taxes because of its wealth in natural resources, well-established civil liberties, and a socially tolerant, live-and-let-live attitude among its people.

Following Alaska, states such as Florida and Texas would have the next best arguments for secession under international law, since they are themselves on a seacoast and their secession would not much disrupt the road, transmission wire, pipeline or other infrastructure networks of the other states.States such as Utah and Kentucky, being landlocked "enclaves," would have a relatively weak argument. On the other hand, it would be relatively easy for these states to join with other states that have already seceded or are in the process of seceding, and form a patchwork of independent republics that develop compacts to facilitate interstate travel, commerce, water flow, transmission of electricity, and so forth.

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase speaking for the U.S. Supreme Court in White v. TexasUS Law of SecessionThe US law of secession is thought to have been decided by the US Supreme Court in White v. Texas, following the Civil War. The actual matter to be decided was relatively insignificant. The Court used the occasion to issue a very broad decision. Chief Justice Chase, speaking for the Court, said, The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.Notice that the second sentence appears to totally contradict the first sentence.

The first sentence I just quoted invokes words such as "perpetual," and in so doing may create the impression that the Supreme Court decreed that no state could ever secede from the Union. But, on careful reading, the relationship between Texas and the other states of the Union is merely "as indissoluble as the union between the original States." In other words, Texas, having been a nonoriginal state, has no greater right of secession than do the original states.

As to how states might secede, the second sentence says, "through revolution or through consent of the States. "As to why a state might secede, either through revolution or through consent, Chief Justice Chase presciently discusses the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution, which reserve to the states and to the people thereof all powers not expressly granted to the federal government, and that the design of the Union, implicit in the very name "United States," is the preservation of the states as well as of the Union: the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government.

The so-called United States of America ceases to exist when the political majority of the country attempts to rule the entire country as a nation instead of as a federal government. In such a circumstance, the "indestructible union of indestructible states" of which the Court speaks is already dissolved.

As to whether "Texas" continued as a state and, furthermore, as a state of the United States during the period of rebellion, the Court made clear that it continued as both although certain rights that normally accrue to states of the United States fell into suspension. Presumably, if Texas had seceded "with the consent of the States," Texas would have been able to free itself from the Union described as the "United States," and could have considered joining into another Union described as the "Confederate States."

Also presumably, if the Confederate States of America had been able to impose their will onto the other states of the United States through force or had been able to induce the other states to consent, Texas and the other states of the Confederate States could have seceded from one Union and joined into another. But, the outcomes of wars are problematic.

How Do "the States" Consent to Secession?

The wide-ranging discussion of the Court in White v. Texas contains a lot of intriguing and obtuse comments. How, for example, do "the States" give consent to the secession of a state? The Constitution, as the Court says, does not envision such a thing, and does not provide a process. What if the legislatures of "the States" sent delegates to a convention that drafted a constitution for a more perfect union, which would take effect for those states that ratified it, providing that at least a two-thirds majority of them did so? For those who were not homeschooled, it may be necessary to point out that this was the process through which the Constitution of 1789 was created and through which eleven states seceded from the union provided by the Articles of Confederation, leaving Rhode Island and North Carolina as the only two states in that prior union. (Those two states eventually also seceded from the prior union, thereupon making it a nullity, and joined into the new union.)

While the Constitution of 1789 required the secession of 9 out of 13 states, does this mean that a supermajority of the states would be necessary for consent? It seems to me that a supermajority would not be necessary, but only a simple majority, for a US version of what is called the "Velvet Revolution" in the former Czechoslovakia, now the Czech and Slovak Republics. In that country, dissolution involved nothing more earth shattering than a bunch of accountants who scurried about the country, totting up the value of the assets of the national government that would fall into the possession of each succeeding government so as to determine how to fairly apportion the national debt to the succeeding governments.

Of course, in that case, both succeeding governments transitioned to membership in the European Union, guaranteeing the free flow of goods, labor and capital between them and the other members of the E.U., as well as guaranteeing certain civil liberties and democratic processes to the persons in each of the succeeding republics.Looking at the electoral maps of the United States of recent presidential elections, it appears that the potentially disaffected red states of a socially liberal, economically socialist blue nation constitute a nearly compact, self-contained block from the southeast coast to the Rocky Mountain west, plus Alaska. Indiana and Ohio appear as two purple states jutting into an otherwise blue Great Lakes region.

New Hampshire is a purple state in a deeply blue New England (but, being a coastline state, it would not matter much that it was not connected by land to other breakaway states). Contrariwise, Colorado and New Mexico are two purple or blue states in the Rocky Mountain region that might wind up as enclaves of Old America amidst the independent republics of New America.

Of course, once it becomes clear that a majority of the states — and specifically those that are the most productive — are seceding, the remaining states of Old America will have to consider their options. Would they want to bail out the corporations, the unionized public-school teachers, municipal workers, and the UAW, and the bankrupt states of California and New Jersey, among others, when the burden falls much more heavily onto them?

A state like Minnesota, with a solid work ethic, which tends to vote Democratic in presidential elections, might think it could do better with New America than with the moochers of Old America. Even Iowa, where they bury farmers only three feet deep nowadays, so they can still get their hand out, will have to weigh the pros of the ethanol subsidies they receive versus the cons of the taxes they will have to pay to subsidize everybody else. Possibly, once the rush gets underway, the only "state" that will be left in Old America will be the District of Columbia.

And the rush for secession is on. Not since 1861 has the United States seen such a wave of secession fever sweep across the land as it does today. Whether all fifty states leave the union to form their own republics I doubt would happen but two or three definately. More than likely the federal government would go through some very radical changes to discourage any other states from leaving the union. But on the other hand it is possible for the nation to split in half with socialists and conservatives forming seperate unions. That would be fine for them and they can do what they want as long as Texas is an Independant Republic I couldn't care less.