Iowa should secede from the United States of America

The brilliance is that there would not be a civil war. A civil war implies that we'd want to control or replace the current federal government. We just want to leave. All battles would take place in Iowa. It wouldn't be an offensive matter. There are lots of land locked countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and even South America. The premise that we could not support ourselves is likewise a fallacy. Iowa produces quiet a lot of agricultural goods, as well as several industrial products. In the near future we will have a very vibrant energy industry. So long s we have goods to offer, we will not require "support", we're hardly an infant suckling at the teat of a federal government. We actually pay in part to support the federal government. The federal government is actually damaging the stability of the state of Iowa with it's irresponsible economic policies, and utter disregard in developing domestic infrastructure to sustain our nation's growth, or even just to maintain our current size. So far as our allies go, I think the Independence of Iowa could be recognized by at least one member of the permanent five of the U.N. Security council. After all of that hassle the United States put China through regarding Taiwan, I'm sure they'd leap at the chance to return the favor. Given the current relationships we maintain with France and the United Kingdom, I suspect they wouldn't be too quick to automatically side with the United States. In fact, the only nation that might side with the United States out of principal is Russia, thanks to their current troubles with Chechnya. NATO might also present a problem, but since 1991 we've been pretty poor at maintaining that alliance. Member nations might not feel too thrilled about coming to the diplomatic aid of the United States. There are also some less important nations that would be a shoe in for supporting us, such as Sudan. The former leader of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army received his Ph.D. from Iowa State University, and his widow also lived in Iowa. Given the role that Iowans have played with both State Department missions, and US AID projects, Southern Sudan may feel obliged to recognize us, especially after the United States refused to honor a peace agreement between southern Sudan and northern Sudan that would have split the nation in two. When you fight a decade long civil war for your independence, and a nation that refused to help you refuses to give you your final independence? The United States has not been winning friends in the last two decades. In fact, many great powers of the world might leap at the opportunity to slap the United States in the face. To respond to your concern that be seceding we are "running away from our problems," I simply state that the problems which the federal government has produced, are not the problems of Iowa. The federal government refuses to acknowledge many of its problems for misguided political reasons. The United States is somehow attempting to run from its problems, and when they catch up with the Federal Government, it might be best if Iowa had no part in the consequences. Iowa would be able to support itself. While the current State budget of Iowa is roughly 3 billion dollars, Iowans pay more than that in federal taxes. Not only would Iowa be able increase it's revenue by taking over a part of the federal tax burden, we'd likely be able to drastically reduce the burden as the State of Iowa carries no debt, and does not require the expense of a massive navy, air force, or standing army to maintain its interests. Austria, another land locked nation, has no standing army whatsoever to speak of. Though the common conception is that the Articles of Confederation were ineffective, they were in place for eleven years and carried the colonies successfully through a war. There were many short comings to the Articles of Confederation when in long term application, which is one of the reasons behind the push for a more firm Constitution. American history courses, especially high school ones focus on some of the short comings as to why the document was replaced as opposed to the fact that it was designed to be a short term organization. At the Declaration if Independence, it was not clear that the colonies would cease to exist as a part of the British Empire. The complete separation from the Empire only occurred after the French sided with us, lending both aid, credit, and soldiers to the American cause. The founding fathers of the State of Iowa saw entering into the Republic as a state as a metaphorical marriage. Marriage is a terrible metaphor for this ill-fated union of states that we belong to. The First Amendment says quite clearly that the government has nothing to do with deities or superstition. Heck, even the Bible notes in Romans that a good Christian leaves unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. So, thinking of one political entity as married to another political entity might not be the best metaphor. Especially given the incredibly high rate of divorce in this country. Otherwise, Iowa would just seek a divorce based off of irreconcilable differences. For your education, I'm going to recommend avoiding political science. The forefathers of the United States studied history and the classics. I have some unhappy news for you, thanks to generations past you're going to have to get started very young. It is not that change must happen, it's that it is going to happen and we had best be prepared, lest when the dust settles we may not find ourselves among the living. It is a matter of time tables. The Federal Government is a monstrous beast, filled with corruption, and backward minded lobbies intended to further their own interest with little regard for the nation. If you keep an open mind, you might see this for yourself as your education continues. Our forefathers lead a secessionist movement. They saw tyranny and injustice, decided that they would have no part in it, and issued a Declaration of Independence. You so freely use the word Patriot to describe your intentions of bringing change to a corrupt government, but advocate fighting tyranny in a peaceful manner? The Ironic thing about the First Amendment is that never has any government in history been threatened by a peaceable assembly. Another true irony is that the Constitution likewise does not protect this speech, as it is sedition. A patriot is not made by obedience to a government in the hopes that one day it might be less tyrannical, a patriot is made by a sacrifice in order to ensure liberty and justice. You are apparently willing to stomach a great number of indecencies just to belong to a nation that is powerful. You also advocate to me that I ought to work hard to reform and preserve a government where individuals from other regions repeatedly insult me, my homeland, and my values on account that their ignorance should amuse me? And then that ignorance should inspire me to devote my life to fixing the problems that they have caused? Parents at least have the authority to spank their children, what you are asking is that I become a servant to a system which is doing me, and my state harm. I'm sorry, you haven't convinced me that it is beneficial for Iowa to remain a part of the Federal government. I am not the first American to present these arguments, so I will leave you with the words of one of our forefathers that you think you know so well; "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -Samuel Adams