> The right to secede is in the American constitution from its very beginning. Any State in the US can decide to become independent if their population really wants to. Whether it makes sense is another story, but it certainly would not regarded as illegitimate.
I'm pretty sure Lincoln would argue with you there.
As I said below in another comment, Lincoln did not recognize the Right to secede, but that was heavily debated at the time of the Civil War (and still is). War does not make things Right by itself - it's just like forcing your view with a gun.
EDIT: this is directly from the Declaration of Independence:
> whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government
Is it a "precedent" if it happened once, 150 years ago? No current USA general would send troops against any area of the USA that held a proper referendum to secede. If one did, few current USA soldiers would follow such unlawful orders. We're more civilized than that, now.
I don't know, I think the opening of the Civil War could be replayed quite accurately in the modern-day America. The opening shots of the Civil War weren't Lincoln's troops firing on civilians in a random Rebel town, it was Rebel troops firing on a Union fortification which refused to evacuate.
I think this is exactly what would happen in the modern day.
"Proper" referendums don't include shooting. Certainly, violence against a military installation will be met with overwhelming violence in return. That's why we'll hold a referendum: to avoid all that. If the soldiers want to hang out in their base that happens to be stuck in the middle of Lesser Midwesternia, that's cool. If they get bored and go home, that will be cool too.
I'm not sure if it's a question of how civilized people are, but I get the feeling that the key reason why a certain number of people do not want Gun Control in the US, is precisely because they want to have access to weapons and resist, should the Federal Government turn tyrannic one day.
Yeah I've heard this explanation as well. It calls to mind Schneier's admonition against "movie plot threats". The reason to have firearms is not to counter any specific threat. We arm ourselves, rather, in order to respond effectively to a wide variety of potential situations. Among those, the "rogue federal government" threat isn't more than a rounding error, in the USA, for the foreseeable future.
Or at the very least, not do so unilaterally. It's possible to imagine adopting something like the Constitutional amendment procedures to allow the nation to "cast off" a state that wished to be independent.
But what is not going to happen is that a state gets to take it's ball and go home just because the nation had the sheer audacity to vote for the wrong President.
Which one are we talking about? Frankly, all the ones I've had the misfortune of living through, blur together for me. It's not like any of them have had any different policies. How could they, possibly?
If any area secedes, it might be because of "The President", but it won't be due to any particular one.
I believe this is a reference to Lincoln; the election of 1860 is frequently cited as one of the triggers for the secession of South Carolina shortly thereafter.
I'm pretty sure Lincoln would argue with you there.