Hmm. But that's essentially a direct-division scenario.
Picture this instead. One small, marginal and particularly fed-up state - say Vermont or Hawaii - elects secessionists and demands autonomy. Similar rumblings might be heard from other states, but only one actually takes the full step. Do you a) send in the army to prevent a small, rather marginal state to leave? Do you b) bribe it with looser federation articles or lots of money? Do you c) let it go?
If you choose a) you might make for more dissent spreading, other states might refuse to send troops to Vermont, vast international outcry and so on, not to mention binding up more of the military at home. That might be uncontrollable in the long run, you might get a revolution if you aren't careful or a true civil war, and you might in the end lose Vermont anyway or be forced to bribe it.
If you accept b) special federation status, more fed-up states will possibly join in and the entire Union risks transformation and deconstruction. You can bribe it in other ways, but that's costly and will also set up a precedence other angry states might go for.
If you c) let it go you lose some tax payers but not that many, and you also get rid of an opposition stronghold. It might be the cheapest solution. But if you let _one_ go, you risk more states doing the same, and the next state wanting to leave might be something more important than Vermont, or a whole bloc of states, and then it becomes really problematic to send in the army.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: hey Matt
Date: 2006-09-30 11:21 pm (UTC)Picture this instead. One small, marginal and particularly fed-up state - say Vermont or Hawaii - elects secessionists and demands autonomy. Similar rumblings might be heard from other states, but only one actually takes the full step. Do you a) send in the army to prevent a small, rather marginal state to leave? Do you b) bribe it with looser federation articles or lots of money? Do you c) let it go?
If you choose a) you might make for more dissent spreading, other states might refuse to send troops to Vermont, vast international outcry and so on, not to mention binding up more of the military at home. That might be uncontrollable in the long run, you might get a revolution if you aren't careful or a true civil war, and you might in the end lose Vermont anyway or be forced to bribe it.
If you accept b) special federation status, more fed-up states will possibly join in and the entire Union risks transformation and deconstruction. You can bribe it in other ways, but that's costly and will also set up a precedence other angry states might go for.
If you c) let it go you lose some tax payers but not that many, and you also get rid of an opposition stronghold. It might be the cheapest solution. But if you let _one_ go, you risk more states doing the same, and the next state wanting to leave might be something more important than Vermont, or a whole bloc of states, and then it becomes really problematic to send in the army.