Skip to comments.American Support For Secession Increases 10% in Just 2 Years...
Posted on 06/06/2012 6:18:45 AM PDT by CNSNews.com
(CNSNews.com) Nearly one-quarter of Americans believe that states have the right to secede, according to a recent poll from Rasmussen Reports -- up 10 percentage points in two years.
The latest poll is just one of many that shows that Americans have serious and growing concern about the federal government, according to Scott Rasmussen, founder and president of Rasmussen Reports.
According to the phone survey released Sunday, 24 percent of Americans believe that states should be able to withdraw from the United States to form their own country, if they want. Nearly 60 percent (59) of Americans say they dont believe states have the right to secede, while 16 percent are undecided.
We do see that people are concerned about the federal government in a variety of ways, Rasmussen told CNSNews.com. 51 percent believe that its a threat to individual liberties.
It may just be part of a growing frustration with other aspects of the federal government, he said.
But I think its important to keep it in perspective, growing to 24 percent still means that only one out of four Americans think that states have the right to secede, its not that theyre advocating for it, Rasmussen said.
Though a minority, the number has been growing. In 2010, when Rasmussen first conducted the poll, only 14 percent of Americans said states had the right to secede. A year later, the number was up to 21 percent.
The poll, which surveyed 1,000 adults between May 29 and 30, asked, among other questions: Do individual states have the right to leave the United States and form an independent country?
Only 10 percent of poll respondents said it was likely a state would attempt to secede in the next 25 years -- a pretty generous time frame, Rasmussen said. So its not seen as a very realistic possibility, he added.
The survey also asked whether the federal government is a protector or a threat to individual rights, to which a majority -- 51 percent -- said the government presents a danger to liberty.
[O]nly 34 percent of adults in this country regard the federal government more as a protector of individual rights, according to the poll.
More Americans than ever are expressing strong concern that the federal government will run out of money, according to Rasmussen Reports, who also found that 64 percent of Americans are at least somewhat worried that the U.S. government will run out of money. 43 percent are very worried that the U.S. government will run out of money, while 31 percent of adults are not worried and 10 percent are not at all worried.
The total federal debt currently stands at $15.8 trillion.
Rasmussen told CNSNews.com that recent polling shows that Americans have a growing frustration with the federal government.
What were seeing in a whole range of surveys is serious and growing concern about the federal government, about the role of government in American life, he said. Only about one out of five Americans believe the government today has the consent of the governed. People believe that Americas best days -- about half the nation believes -- Americas best days have come and gone.
Only 16 percent believe that todays children will be better off than their parents, he said, thats a horrifically low number for America.
And then youve got individual proposals, [New York City] Mayor [Michael] Bloombergs proposal of banning large sugary drinks is supported by 24 percent of Americans, 2 out of 3 oppose it, Rasmussen added. So theres this frustration thats been building.
Count me as a proud member of the 25%. My personal conviction is this is the only long term solution.
All 50 states are sovereign over the Federal Government still today.
The only power the Fed has over the states are Federal Reserve Notes.
Of course states have the right to secede. The question lies in the process; the “how”.
Plus, other countries might consider joining us, if they know they can get out with a reasonable effort (90% vote of citizenship take in two votes, 1 to initialize and show intent and second 6months or a year later to formally withdraw from the Union?)
I'm right there with you, for the same reason.
I think the understanding on both sides is that there can be no “compromise” worked out between statists and individualists.
If the individualists keep the statists out of power, then the statists’ policy is null. If the statists get power, then the individuals’ liberty is null.
Individualists would love to separate and just be left alone by the statists,
but the statists, by their very nature, seek control, especially over those that disagree with their ideology.
It would be interesting to see what the numbers are for each state. I would bet that Texas is up around 35%.
It may just be part of a growing frustration with other aspects of the federal government, he said.
No, the frustration is that more people are waking up to the fact that government is taking away more and more choices and freedoms.
If the Supreme Court comes out with a ruling to force states to accept gay marriage, my support for secession goes up exponentially.
We ARE the 25%......
The entire south tried to secede bringing about the Civil War. If it wasn’t allowed then, why would it be allowable now? Contrary to popular belief the Civil War wasn’t about the slavery issue, it was because the Confederate states didn’t want to be part of the Union. Am I wrong?
And Northern liberals had no right expanding the scope and power of the Federal government using the Civil War as an excuse.
Of course, even if the North had allowed a peaceful secession, the South would have been an undeniable threat or am I wrong? It appeared even on the eve of war at Fort Sumpter that the South wasn't overtly aggressive.
It is likely that the South would have diminished greatly in power over the decades relying on slaves instead of innovation. A slave-rich South would have become an impoverished South. Eventually, the South would have been begging to be let back into the Union. But would that have hampered the progress of the United States as to allow the other world powers a freer hand in dominating the globe? Probably.
Individualists would love to separate and just be left alone by the statists, but the statists, by their very nature, seek control, especially over those that disagree with their ideology.
Secession is in the American bloodstream. Your ancestors separated themselves from (perceived or actual) unjust or unfree countries so that they could be free. There is no sense in which the American people ‘are not allowed to secede’.
In fact: if the Constitution is no longer being honored in the US, you don’t really have a choice.
The Constitution guarantees the States a republican form of governemnt. If all the power and authority resides in DC, then there is no republic - the contract is broken, and the Constitution is no longer in effect.
Thanks for this thread.
As Federal National Debt continues to make the US Federal Government TO BIG TO SUCCEED, the Regional breakup of the former United States of America will follow Economic, Commonsense Guidelines.
The States through which the XL Tar Sands Pipeline will run will be called the Texas Region of America.
The States through which the Mississippi River runs will be called the Mississippi Region of America.
The other major regions will be the Pacific Coast, Atlantic Coast, and Rocky Mountain Regions of America.
Each State can then vote whatever welfare debt structure or social engineering plan that they want to burden themselves with, as long as they agree to assume sole responsibility for the financial and social consequences of their actions.
E Unum, Plurabus Reginum.
"How" is well known, even identified in a decision written by Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Salmon P. Chase (next paragraph). You declare your independence, and then you fight a war if the tyrant in our White House or his replacement refuses to give consent to the separation and tries to compel your state(s) to remain under his thumb. I like the fact that South Carolina held a formal vote and that it was 169-0 in favor of independence, rather than a single official making a unilateral declaration. I hope that we can avoid that path, although a peaceful separation is immeasurably better than the trampling of individual, God-given, constitutionally-protected rights that Obama is attempting to implement (no comment on whether a second civil war is also better). A mandate that employers provide abortion, contraception, or any other morally repugnant and religiously prohibited element of "medical care" crosses a clear line, as does a mandate for pharmacists to stock abortion pills, and any other government action restricting the free exercise of religion.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation . . . 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.
According to historian Robert Calhoon, between 40 and 45 percent of the white population supported the Patriots' cause in 1776, between 15 and 20% supported the Loyalists, and the remainder were neutral or kept a low profile. I haven't found a similarly well-supported estimate for the South, but it seems to have been roughly the same. Keeping in mind how quickly public opinion can swing, I hope Obama will restrain his big government urges enough that he doesn't push another 15-20% of Americans across the line. Given today's global problems and dangers, this would be a dangerous time for another civil war, and I hope Obama will permit us to avoid that catastrophe.
Sorry but I think that you have it backwards. Ownership of slaves was protected by both the Declaration Of Independence and the US Constitution. But the act of secession was never defined in either document (except rhetorically in the DOI).
The south had the "right" to secede by virtue of the human right to rebel, but what they did and how they did it was extra-legal and the root cause of the Civil War.
Great Britain salivated at the prospect of a US internecine war and stood on the sidelines eager for the opportunity to reestablish control in America. Weakened by the conflict, even had the csa prevailed over the union they would have been ripe for the picking of the brits.
Secession is in the American bloodstream
I agree with that statement. The way I see it Lincoln in his attempt to “preserve the nation” really brought about the demise of our freedoms in this country and the era of centralized government was ushered in. Thanks a lot Abe!
Secession isn’t the answer.
EJECTION of new England and California would do much to clear up the current mess.
Everyone seems to miss out a point on the founding of this country, if you look at the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers didn’t want to leave England, just felt that there was no longer any choice. The Declaration of Independence has a long list of the wrongs that the English crown had done to the colonies which became the United States of America. If those colonies had been treated far better, a seperate United States of America may have been long in coming. I challenge anybody to come with a similiar list of wrongs that the Federal government did to the Southern States prior to the Civil War of 1861-1865
Well, theoretically the South had the right to secede. Nothing in the constitution said they couldn’t. They probably wouldn’t have signed up, if they thought they would not be allowed to change their mind.
However, governments don’t take kindly to challenges to their authority, so splitting up often means war, and Mr. Lincoln’s Administration was no exception.
It really wouldn’t bother me if the blue states seceded, as long as they take their share of the debt with them. Then the red states can get back to honoring and restoring the system to what it should be.
What are you going to use for $$$$
Same problem the south had —confederate $$$$
Lincoln NEVER believed in State rights to do anything at all unless it was only done inside an individual State and the USSC court case cited above merely echoed what Lincoln destroyed a nation for, a massive central State:
“[O]ur permanent part; ... the land we inhabit; ... our national homestead ... demands union, and abhors separation,” Lincoln argued. “In fact, it would, ere long, force reunion, however much of blood and treasure the separation might have cost.”
Lincoln’s concept of nationality demolished the underpinnings of state-sovereignty constitutional theory. Quite simply, “[T]he Union is older than any of the States.” The states did not create the Union; an American people created both states and Union, and the states never had any existence outside that Union. Thus, “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people”not the states”who inhabit it.” They might alter its government through amendment or revolution, but whether creating the Union or destroying it, it was they, not the states, who were its constituent elements. To Lincoln, it was not the southern states but individual southerners who were in rebellion, and he could ask the question, “By what principle ... is it that one-fiftieth or one-ninetieth of a great nation, by calling themselves a State, have the right to break up and ruin that nation?”
“[T]he Union is older than any of the States.” The states did not create the Union; an American people created both states and Union, and the states never had any existence outside that Union. Thus, “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people”not the states”who inhabit it.”
“If it wasnt allowed then, why would it be allowable now?”
Allowed by whom? Whom does the Constitution give authority to over whether states are allowed to secede?
It really wouldnt bother me if the blue states seceded, as long as they take their share of the debt with them. Then the red states can get back to honoring and restoring the system to what it should be.
That is the best idea. We could prove to the libotards that their way is wrong while red states thrive....and we wouldn’t let them back in either after they declare bankruptcy. I’ll move out of NJ for that reason - even to a place without the ocean. South Carolina, Georgia and Texas would be likely candidates.
If at first you don’t secede, parachuting probably isn’t for you.
Just because it would be a new country should not mean there should be a problem with having a viable currency. Using your logic, the US nor any other emerging nation would not have successfully come in to existence either.
“I guess the South had every right to secede. They just didn’t have the right to enslave humans”
“even if the North had allowed a peaceful secession, the South would have been an undeniable threat “
Total BS. That liberal public school propaganda really got to you.
The North had slavery, too. Hell, it was still in the US Constitution at the time of Civil War. Not even Lincoln wanted to end slavery and he had even worked to ensure freed slaves were never allowed in his home state of Illinois! The Civil War to Lincoln was about his railroad partners needing to keep the union together. Lincoln even wrote that States had the right to leave the union.
Just how was the South an “undeniable threat”? What threat? If it is so “undeniable” then point it out.
“I challenge anybody to come with a similiar list of wrongs that the Federal government did to the Southern States prior to the Civil War of 1861-1865”
Then you haven’t studied history. The northern States routinely made laws in Congress to the detriment of the southern States.
The civil war was conducted because the aggressors didn’t want to let the seceding states out from under their thumb,
and the same thing would happen today.
LOL. Somehow I always think Texas might be the best. Somewhere in my history classes, long ago I was told that Texas preserved the right to secede before they decided to join.
I have no idea if that was true or not, but I always expect Texans to rebel and just ignore what the Feds say at some point. LOL.
Their Declarations of Secession state clearly slavery was the reason. They didn't want to be part of the Union because the Union was getting rid of slavery.
Not that I'm an advocate of secession (yet), but if a state wants to secede they better not do so in the name of the attempted slavocracy of 1861. Rather a state should want independence for noble causes such as there were when we declared independence from Britain.
The South fired first at Sumter.
The South fired first at Sumter.
Yes they did.LOL. Details Details. You think ole Abe would have just let the South go with out a shot? He was pretty determined to keep the Union together wasn’t he?
Two words: Morrill Tariff:
Our new nation was a gold and silver currency and then paperbacks backed by gold and silver
Plus how many now depend on the Feds for SS and Medicare
You are deluding yourself
Whatever currency works is what should be done. Why do you presume that whatever didn’t work in the past is what will automatically be the default mode of operation in the future? You are asserting that just because a new nation attempts to emerge, it automatically will fail. Either you are part of the status RINOs or an outright leftist.
The Morrill Tariff didn’t pass until after the south cut~n~run.
"Allowed" had nothing to do with it then, nor would it now. It was a matter of tactics and numbers. This time the numbers might be in favor of seccession. After all, the North can't use the slave card this time. Furthermore all states, North and South, are now feeling the bite of tyranny.
It a whole new situation this day and age.
That’s a pretty broad answer. Care to elaborate?
How about a REALIST