Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Georgia paper fights secession trigger

The Georgia Senate's State sovereignty resolution has a secession trigger, which has one editorial board's knickers in a knot. The Valdosta Daily Times reports that in their poll following a column on the subject, approximately half of the respondents favored secession. They pull out the standard mainstream media arguments against the idea:

"Georgians would need a passport to travel to South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, or any other part of the U.S. Or if we just sneaked across the border, Georgians could be considered illegal immigrants in the U.S."


Technically, yes; but that would likely be a temporary problem. Georgia's secession would undoubtedly embolden other States (especially South Carolina) to do the same. As independent nations, the seceded States could negotiate something like a Schengen treaty to simplify movement among them.

"There would be no more federal funding for road projects, schools, construction, and various other amenities to which most Georgians have become accustomed. Of course, we could pay for all of these projects out of our own pockets."

And that's a bad thing? Georgians would also be allowed to keep all of the tax dollars they are sending to Washington! They could set up programs that meet their own needs, in their own way. The net result would likely be a large reduction in taxes.

"Meanwhile, what would happen to Moody Air Force Base and all of the other U.S. military bases throughout the state? The U.S. wouldn’t just let the nation of Georgia have them. Georgia couldn’t just block them off and hope the federal government wouldn’t make some effort to fortify the bases, reclaim them, etc. Perhaps, some folks may recall Fort Sumter, or something called the Civil War, for that matter."

Consider this, Georgians. You won't need all those military bases. You will think of national defense as just that -- defense of Georgia against foreign aggression. As to the War between the States (I'm surprised a Georgian used the ├╝ber-Northern term), there is no reason secession could not be negotiated. The South is much stronger, industrially and morally, relative to the rest of the nation than it was in 1860. Given the desperate financial condition of the Federal Government, I wouldn't be surprised if offering the Feds, say, 2% of the national debt ($220 billion), spread over 20 years, proved sufficient to avoid war.

"And how many national and international businesses would want to locate in this experiment of a nation called Georgia? How many companies would remain?"


With lower taxes, your economy will boom. What does a corporation care what country it's in, as long as the conditions are favorable for business?

"How many folks would consider a General Assembly move to secede as nothing less than a coup?"


That's your call, Georgia. Apparently, half of the respondents of your poll didn't think it was a coup.

"How many Georgians would rather be considered Americans and move away? How many families would be split by secession, both within Georgia and throughout Georgia and the U.S.?"

There will be some who would prefer to remain in the United States. That is their right, and it should be respected. As to the families split by secession -- if the Republic of Georgia (uh, you're going to need a less confusing name), respects this right, the problem of splitting families is one for those families to decide.

"What do U.S. servicemen and women serving their country in Afghanistan and Iraq think when they hear that a state is considering secession from the United States of America? "


I imagine the troops from Georgia will be as divided as everyone else. If the purpose clearly is to expand the liberties of Georgians, reduce the tax burden, and enable the people of Georgia to develop their economy and culture in their own way, I imagine that most of the troops would prove to be in favor of secession. Soldiers and sailors have opinions like the rest of us -- they just choose to keep some of them to themselves while in the service.

"Secession would give a whole new meaning to those car magnets stating, “We support our troops.” The troops we support now will likely be the troops we would fight in the future. "

Rubbish. This is not 1860, people. It is more like 1775. Or, dear editors, do you think we would have been better off remaining in the British Empire?

5 comments:

Preacher Bob said...

Our declaration of independence in 1776 and the start of secession in 1860 were virtually the same thing. The troops that they supported then, was the troops that they eventually had to fight.

The "War Between the States" was the second war of independence. Both secessions brought war. Lincoln was not about to give up money, so he attacked the South.

I do not believe that a modern day secession would go peacefully. I'm whole heartily for secession, but to think that the federal govern. will just let secession happen is a pipe dream.

Barga said...

Harold, saw you in the dispatch

Harold Thomas said...

Barga is referring to my letter to the editor on Memorial Day, published in today's web edition of the Columbus Dispatch.

Harold

Barga said...

yes sir, that is what i was referring to

Harold Thomas said...

Preacher Bob:

I'm not saying the Feds will "just let secession happen". They may not have a choice if they are too financially strapped, or if the military refuses to go along with the use of force against American civilians (see Oath Keepers.

The U.S. military generally (allowing for some atrocities of war) lives up to a high ethical standard. I particularly cannot see the National Guard, on which the military is more and more reliant, making war on fellow Americans to enforce a "new world order."