Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
OP obviously isn't disputing that slavery was the proximate cause for the Civil War.
He is asking a simple question. If Alaska voted overwhelmingly to secede from the United States, and the vote was not motivated by a desire to perpetuate some sort of heinous institution like slavery, should the United States respect that decision and let Alaska secede? Or should factors like the strategic importance of Alaska's oil natural resources dictate a different response?
I think that captures the crux of it.
Because geographic location of an important natural resource could be every bit the reason to secede, as way to not 'share the wealth' and that begs the question should the rest of the country just allow that break away region to 'look out for itself'.
You could see how such fracturing could lead to no real stable countries as any wealthy region might want to secede from the poorer ones to keep all their wealth.
In Canada this would be Alberta, who, like Quebec, has always harboured separatist elements. But Alberta, unlike Quebec had this been done decades ago would be probably the richest 'small' country in the world in not having to share its resource wealth Canada wide. Quebec had it seceded would have spiraled into poverty unless they could rethink their governance model which was built on transfer payments from other other provinces.
And that then begs a different question. Rococo posited Alaska which could be severed fairly painlessly. But what about Alberta that is a landlocked province with other Provinces on both sides. Meaning even if they seceded to keep all their Resource revenues to themselves, they would have no market for any of it, if they could not reach deals with the rest of Canada to access their lands to transport it.
I could see AB, the day after secession, facing a comparable 'fee for access' system that approximated the lost revenue from the taxes.
Would that be fair??