OK, when have Russia and China supported a wide manner of secessionist movements in another major country? If they haven’t, what do you base their alleged willingness to on?
I’m not sure why you think your opinion of a claim that no one is making is relevant to this thread. I certainly didn’t claim that Russia or China “wouldn’t meddle”, they “meddle” in all kinds of things. But they’re not going to openly support secessionist movements using the argument that the UN charter explicitly allows secession by regions that feel disaffected, because that weakens their case for dealing with their own secessionist regions - in other words, they don’t think they can get away with that.
Here, I’ll repost the specific opinion statement I was responding too, only this time I’ll completely isolate from the rest of your post, instead of merely bolding it to highlight it, so as to avoid any further confusion. I think your opinion is wrong, even though on the face of it, it would seem correct. to clarify my opinion, I think they would (and possibly do) support secession movements in the US, but probably not openly.
For the record, California sends representatives to the House of Representatives. You send senators to the Senate. You vote for the President of the US, and, in fact, have more electoral votes than any other state. Three presidents have been from California. One of the 8 members of the Supreme Court is from Californa. The current House minority leader, who was, until 6 years ago, Speaker of the House, is from California. The current House majority leader, who is in a good position to become Speaker of the House should Paul Ryan resign in frustration with his caucus, is from California.
So explain again how you’re being denied self government?
There’s historical precedent for not supporting independence movement to not encourage the same in your own country: for instance Austria’s lack of support for Greek independence from the Ottomans.
I don’t think you have to look that far back. It’s fairly accepted that Spain’s stance during the Scottish independence referendum, i.e. Scotland wouldn’t get to stay in the EU once they separated, was to dissuade their own independence movements.
When you secede out there, think about alternatives to representative government (I assume that’s still a go with you) based on geography. Think age instead.
Secession didn’t start a shooting war. The CSA’s military attack against Ft Sumter did. Until April 12, 1861, those concerned about the secession of seven states spent their time talking about the issue. You can’t do that. Yes, we can. Sez who? Sez us, y’all. They can’t do that, can they? Apparently they can. What do we do know? I don’t know.
General interest question - Is there anyone in the U.S. who would actually support the use of U.S. Armed Forces to force California back into the U.S.A.? I don’t believe there are.
If CA tried to secede, as a CA resident and citizen of the U.S. I’d consider taking up arms as a potential outcome of last resort. I’d prefer that the new country of CA compensate me for my land at a price of my choosing. Now if the state trying to secede was any other than CA since I’m not a resident I’d not be as interested. It’s an interesting thought experiment.
i thought conservatives would line up to blow away California weirdos.
But seriously, if California did secede, I hope the response wouldn’t come to violence but I would certainly accept that the US may have to use the National Guard or whatever to enforce the law that states don’t get to rewrite the Constitution because they would prefer to.
There are people in this thread who have said they’d be in favor of it, I’m not sure why you’re denying they exist. The US government should not allow an arbitrary group of traitors in revolt or a foreign government to claim sovereignity over US citizens without a fight, if a group can arbitrarily declare that US territory populated by US citizens is suddenly theirs then there’s no point in having a US government at all.
I do and I doubt I’m a minority of 1. I’d much rather see secessionists and their supporters crushed than deal with the Balkanization of the US and future wars.
I’d definitely expect that it would happen. I’d hope ports didn’t get bombed, because I work within a mile of one. Although if they buttoned down SF bay, Stockton’s port would be blocked as a byproduct. So we might luck out there.
It wouldn’t be anything like the Civil War, however. More like the desegregation of Southern schools - limited military force to undo whatever the CA government officials tried to do, some arrests, maybe declare martial law in a few places, then replace the elected officials who went along with the secession and then Reconstruction.
Messy and unpleasant, certainly. Fortunately it won’t happen.
“Support” might be too strong a word. As a general rule, I would not be in favor of military action against US citizens (or anyone else) but I accept that sometimes it’s necessary. In the case of a unilateral secession by California or any other portion of the country it would be necessary.
I am not opposed to a negotiated exit with appropriate concessions made to the remainder US. Not in principle, anyway. In practice I would be hugely opposed since it would mean a fundamental shift in the balance of power in the federal government.
Yes, there are many of us who would support military intervention, as has already been said.
Shodan In my opinion, unfounded on facts as it may be, it seems it took the South, roughly 100 years to recover fully from the effects of the civil war and reconstruction. Do you have any opinion on what the results from similar actions in California would be, and how long it would take for California recover fully? I only ask because you mentioned reconstruction and it made wonder about that part of it.