I would assume if peaceable, that there would be some type of purchase of assets in the new confederacy.
I would submit that your position stands in stark contrast with that of Jefferson, via the Declaration of Independence: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. Emphasis mine. While disagreeable, reprehensible even, to some, I'm not sure as to how one can mistake what Jefferson intends here, and it certainly isn't voting.
Also, what do you gain? A landlocked country? If you are lucky, you may have a port that the feds will leave in disrepair.
While obviously important, the Declaration of Independence has limited, if any, legal status. Besides, as noted before, every state has representation and voting status in the direction of the country, unlike what Jefferson is referencing in this document.
Not being coy, but again, here are Jefferson's own words: ..deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. First Jefferson makes it perfectly clear - the power to govern does not simply "belong" to the government, nor is it its birthright, but can only be given it a the consent of those whom consent it, instead, that is, if it is to be just. Or, the continued rule of a government over those who no longer consent to it is simply unjust. It neither matters nor requires why such consent is either given or removed, and intentionally so, for the sufficiency of one's consent is neither for the government's nor anyone else's to weigh and measure, but which must - can - only be settled in the hearts and minds of the individual, alone, and no other. Second, when Jefferson says that "when any government becomes destructive of those ends" - take careful note that he again refuses to allow the government to determine what is, or is not, "destructive" nor that it must be agreed upon by any other as meeting some standard of sufficient harm. Again, it is for the People to determine, alone. Third, based upon the determination of the People, it is their RIGHT - and neither some privilege or allowance which must be afforded them, and hence, can be similarly removed - "to alter or abolish it". Surely, one would consider secession to be a significant alteration, or which may lead to the abolishment of the Union, and hence, not only allowable - but compulsory. Finally, should any reasonable doubt still remain, Jefferson draws the brightest of lines when he says, "laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." And here is the burden, and it's the lowest of all possible standards, that the government may be thrown off if it simply "seems" to the people to be "most likely" to better provide for their "safety and happiness". Meaning, they don't have to prove that their safety and happiness is really in any danger, whatsoever, nor must they even be certain that it is - they do not have to know what separating may mean, be prepared for any eventuality, or even to know if such will actually provide them with an even greater sense of safety and happiness. I am not advocating secession, in any form, for any reason. However, I disagree with anyone (not just you, OE) who seems certain that it is such a far-flung and impossible thing to consider. And, we may very well say that Jefferson's comments are somehow not applicable to us, in the here and now, or even that they may be the rankings of a lunatic - but we cannot say that he did not know or somehow failed to fully and clearly convey his intentions on the matter, as he leaves the reader no reasonable alternative to believe. We can ignore his words, minimize them, contort them, deny them, marginalized their meaning or even attack him personally - but there they are. (Forgive any typos in grammar or spelling, as I am on mobile)
While those questions are both real and reasonable things to consider - but are not required to be answered before a decision to secede is made. The withdrawing of consent, for whatever unspoken reason, is all that is required.
For the record, the only time I would have ever advocated secession would be under the tyrannical freedom hating, racist, bigot, misanthrope, piece of shit Woodrow Wilson. This country will never see a bastard like that again.
What does South Carolina have to offer other than Charleston and 41.3 miles of Mountain area? I would imagine Virginia, Georgia, Florida and Texas might get close.
But does South Carolina, or any collection of States have the legal right to secede? That question must be answered, as it frames all others.
I am against any opposition to "Obamacare", other than that which may be required in the normal course of any law - believing that we are a nation of laws, and trusting that the SCOTUS has effectively settled any question as to its legality.
What?? Is this an exercise in Reductio ad absurdum? Tennessee is not seceding by themselves nor is any state.
Its not fantasy its history. You seem to believe in an alternate version of history. Before we have a hypothetical debate on the virtues of secession, we need to be able to agree on just a few historical truths.
