I wish mjkidd, neoconfederates, and other Southern apologists would answer my question.

Do you guys think the South seceding would not have brought on another British invasion?

Almost certainly not. The British had strong commercial interests in the South and the US (even just the North) was far stronger in 1860 than in 1812 and the British Empire weaker.

So if 10% of Idaho citizens staged a rump convention, and declared a racist militia based independence nation-state of "White Idaho"... you would feel that the US army, or the state militias of say Oregon or Montana if you wish, would be wrong to intercede to stop that secession?

How about if the Canadian army interceded, would that be wrong in your book also? What if it was 90% of Idaho citizens, and the remaining 10% were being rounded up and sent to forced labor camps? Do you still feel it would be wrong for anyone to intercede?

Of course not. But the latter case is NOT a war to stop secession but rather a human rights war to stop slavery. The former is illegitimate because if it's exclusivity and the fact that it just represents a minority. Now, of course I understand that both of these examples apply to South Carolina in 1860. But Lincoln's war was explicitly to stop secession, he never claimed that slavery made the south's secession illegitimate, he claimed that secession -- any secession, under any circumstances -- is illegal and will be met with force of arms. And that's the law of the land today.

So my question to you is if a majority of Idahodians vote to leave the USA do you think war and armed invasion is justified in response?

What about the minority who vote against secession? They would lose the rights and protections of being US citizens... stuff like the Bill or Rights, access to US passports, the "full faith" of their contracts with people in the remaining US? They would possibly even lose the right to freely travel into or out of the new nation-state. And they would be saddled with an overwhelming and economy destroying debt -- their share of the US national debt.

How do you justify the tyranny of the majority over that innocent minority who either were born in Idaho, or moved to Idaho in good faith as US citizens?

And WTF is magical about what are in the modern world simply administrative provinces? What if 90% of the people in northern Idaho voted to secede from the US? What about if 90% of the people in Boise voted to secede? What if 90% of the people in northern Boise voted to secede? What if 90% of the people on a single block in Boise voted to secede? What if 90% of the people in a single house in Boise voted to secede?

Where do you draw the line? And LOL in advance if you draw the line only at the administrative province level.

You don't understand. The South were pacifists who were forced into fighting against their will because the North wouldn't return their slaves. They had no choice - why is that so hard to grasp?

Dammit every time someone posts this I have to take a timeout to savor it. I can't decide if the main dude or the fat dude in sweats is my favorite. I go back and forth.

lol they're already saddled with the national debt whether they secede or not. All the rest is true and sucks but keeping a large geographical region in a country by force sucks much worse. Chechnya, the Kurds, etc.

I don't know where to draw the line. But areas thousands of square miles with millions of people in them seem like a good start.

WTF main dude is GOAT

Fat dude is like a good Pinot, it takes time to appreciate his magnificence.

OK, obviously, the best is the guy on the far left who was a true visionary by pointing out how hilarious main dude is WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING


Fat dude is great for sure, but I kinda suspect that's what he does all the time anyway and this gif just captured a few seconds of his normal life.

What about the dude in the top right with the glasses who stares creepily at the fat guy then eats popcorn?

OK, well where can we draw the line here...

What level of majority (or super-majority) legitimizes a buncha rebels to use violence against the existing order. Because one thing that isn't unique is this... the rebels almost by definition resort to violence first, just like the CSA did. If the CSA hadn't attempted to illegally secede, and hadn't attempted to enforce their secession using violence... their wouldn't have been any war, period.

So in general, IYO what level of support do rebels need to start or continue legitimately using violence against an already established and peaceful order?.

Obviously there wouldn't have been a war if the South hadn't seceded. There absolutely still would have been a war had the South let Sumter been reinforced without firing a shot.

Fat dude screaming "**** YOU, **** YOU" just can't be topped.

Ignoring the loaded framing of your question for a moment, probably some sort of 2/3 or 3/4 supermajority seems right.

But my whole point is that violence shouldn't automatically be the response of a secession movement. Look at Quebec. That is how a civilized country handles a secession movement. Then look at Chechnya.

Well yeah, let's look at Quebec and Chechnya.

The Quebec separatists are not rebels, and they have been committed to a peaceful and negotiated legal withdraw from Canada.

The Checknya separatists are rebels, and some of them have been committed to a violent illegal terrorist campaign in Russia and elsewhere... in other words just like the CSA was committed to a violent illegal terrorist campaign in the US, starting with firing on Ft. Sumter.

lol the Quebec separatists are not rebels because there exists a political mechanism for separation. Unlike in Russia and the US.

IDK about Russia one way or the other.

But under the US Constitution there are at least two ways to handle secession... (1) With the approval of Congress, the USA State of SC could cede what land the separatists wanted to the USA, with the agreement being the USA would then sell that land to the separatists new nation-state, or (2) a constitutional amendment specifying a procedure on how states could secede if they wished.

IDK, but is there a procedure specified in Canada's Basic Law that allows provinces to secede right now? If not, aren't the Quebec separatists in the exact same boat as the US southern leaders were in c1860?

Kevin Sorbo on the left pointing to Andy Sandberg in the middle imo

Then the USA was also completely illegitimate, and their illegal, treasonous actions directly led to the Revolutionary War. So to be legitimate, you just have to win the war, right?

just to clarify though, slavery was terrible, and so was secession for the purpose of continuing slavery. I just don't agree with starting a war over secession, or forcing states to remain part of a union. Hypothetically, if the USA decided to withdraw (or "secede") from the U.N., should the U.N. be allowed to send troops here and kill millions for the purpose of keeping us in the U.N.?

Britain, then, was also an illegitimate regime.

1. Ouch. You're implying that the feds own South Carolina.
2. Shooting was totally justified under the preemptive strike doctrine, brah.

To be legitimate you either gotta win the war, or peacefully negotiate a withdraw... and then be internationally recognized by the existing nation-states.

The US isn't a "sub-part" of the UN in the sense we are speaking of, so that doesn't make any sense. Also the UN complex is located in NYC, and is basically dependent on the NYPD/USSS for their external security. It would be quick work by the US military to embargo, occupy, or simply destroy it.

but, if only as many white people were smoking it, and the white population is 4x larger than black population...that would mean blacks have a 400% higher likelihood of smoking crack, correct?

the point is, not everything Fly (and yourself, apparently) or the SuperPC culture in this country considers racism is actually racism.