English cities aren’t the equivalent of American States. The apt comparison here is with the constituent parts of the current UK, i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and NI.
Scotland has already had an independence referendum, with another possible in the future. NI has a border poll baked into it own constitutional settlement. Wales…forget Wales. And England effectively is the UK writ large (apologies non-English British people).
Scotland, Wales and NI arent apt either, merely by the fact that they get to have the possibility of that referendum. US states, for all intents and purposes, are much closer to provinces, despite what they may say. They dont have sovereignty, not in the sense of an actual nation state.
Thanks for your valuable input.
Conditions change and laws change. Indeed the presidents you cite each presided over much smaller countries than current incumbents.
Some change, some don't. The land mass that Lincoln presided over is the same as mainland USA today. And the principle was made clear, one nation, under God, indivisible. Nation, not states.
The consequence being imprisonment or death in this context?
Imprisonment for ringleaders, most likely. Revocation of voting rights for any referendum signee, to be restored by a request for pardon and taking the Pledge of Allegiance again. If Bobby Lee and Davis weren't hanged, death isn't on the menu.
It could indeed be worse because at least the margin of difference is small now.
The margin of difference now is millions of votes.
I didn’t refer to the vast majority of people, I referred to the vast majority of voters, by which I mean those who voted.
And the vast majority of voters would be able to prevent that outcome by voting for one candidate, if the winner is so unpalatable for them. And the only difference between 'voters' and 'eligible to vote' in your argument is whether they participate, so by not participating they effectively made the same choice as the 'vast majority of voters'.
Frankly speaking, this discussion is pointless, because despite not being well versed yourself with the history of the EC as well as the Civil War, you are not prepared to cede any ground based on this nebulous idea of 'states may leave if they dont like the democratic process', which, while reasonable as a standalone idea, is completely at odds with US history and legal tradition, as well as the actual modern day demographic composition of these potential seditious states. Nearly half of Mississipi, for example, are black people, you think they would countenance an attempt to secede? Even the majority white, rural, flyover states rely heavily on federal military installation for jobs, or farm subsidies, they would starve themselves literally in the name of 'freedom' if they were to secede. It's a fantasy.
