3424
Comments (564)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
18
NullifyAndSecede 18 points ago +18 / -0

An important thing to remember, is that sovereign states can still cooperate for a common defense, it happens even now.

This was closer to the way these united states were originally conceived as well.

Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as in a state of impermissible ‘anarchy’, why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighbourhood? Each block? Each house? Each person

― Murray N. Rothbard

10
Joesf23 10 points ago +10 / -0

Correct, this notion that leaving the union means violent civil war is one of the dumbest mindsets to have. However, public schools have lied about mostly everything else, so why not lie about lincoln and the civil war. People also have this backwards thinking in which if a state seceedes or even region leaves, that somehow they cant work with neighboring states or form defense alliances. Insanity. The country is too big to be ruled by DC. There were 13 colonies when we were created and even after 1803 we still had 1/3 of the country's land not owned by the US yet.

7
Americomrade1 7 points ago +7 / -0

The first attempt was known as the “articles of confederation”.

2
Dfalt 2 points ago +2 / -0

Every history class I ever had that covered the Articles of Confederation all mentioned them briefly and them dismissed them as being "too weak" without any real explanation, and that's always felt like proaganda to me