Roger Wilco wrote:
So much for democracy, surely if a referredum was held in a state and a signifigant majority (say 70%) voted to secede. Haven't the people spoken and made their wishes known?
So yes they should be allowed to leave if they have the support of the populance.
Look, this isn't a Scotland/UK situation we're talking about here. There just aren't any prima facie cases to be made for this being anything other than naked insurrection. Which is fine, but the way I see it you've got to call it like it is (a rebellion, IOW). If they want to rebel, I'm all for it. Bring it on.
It's like saying if a majority of a state's populace wanted to ban free press, set up a Church of Louisiana or reinstate slavery we should just let them, because of "democracy". It's unconstitutional and it's insane. It is not and (as the Civil War proved) never has been a state's right.
And let's add to that the very real amount of disenfranchised people who may not make up enough of the populace to deny a "significant" majority (and who would likely become even more disenfranchised) who already live in the state of Louisiana even while it lay within the US. What becomes of them?
And last but not least, what problems can we imagine are so severe where Louisiana being an independent country becomes the only viable solution? Despite all the cynicism, the United States remains strongly democratic, with enfranchisement given to all of its citizens and to its states via the national legislature. The "dire" circumstances would therefore have to be truly extreme to make secession seem necessary or plausible.