Not refuting that point. Your interpretation of “legal” secession, however, is not only antiquated, but treasonous. But if you’d like to imagine a weaker America that cannot compete in a globalized economy, that’s your prerogative. Just keep it to your fringe corner of the internet.
Pitiful? America would not have grown to the country it is today had it not been for the federal government. Your concerns are precisely why the Constitution has checks in place — like the 10th amendment — to ensure states maintain certain rights.
A house divided cannot stand.
That’s treason. You’d prefer to kill someone else’s neighbors, fathers, husbands, brothers and sons? It’s not like there’s an army called the the “Feds.” They came from states too.
On the contrary, I lived through Newt Gingrich and the “Contract with America.” Although I was young at the time, and not fully in agreement with his tactics or views, I admired the intellectual weight of arguments. Him and Clinton were having a graduate-level discourse on the best direction for America, unlike what we see from the Oval Office today…
You’re noting differences without consequence. The Nazis bombed all of London, which included the killing of many British civilians. They gassed millions of Jews and murdered many others. The method of murder should not matter when you’re talking about innocent civilians. Was Grant and US military strategy across history perfect? No. But it doesn’t hold a candle to the atrocities of the Nazis.
Efforts to disenfranchise historically oppressed groups in order to maintain political power is similar to Jim Crow, Black Codes, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. — yes. It doesn’t matter if states call a law “Voter ID Law” or “Combat Voter Fraud Law” if its intended purpose and/or effect is to disenfranchise a class of people that should otherwise be permitted to vote.