Like many have pointed out, only 2/3 of California wouild be OK with secession and that’s being generous. What would happen is that after California gets a majority vote to leave, Northern California will then vote to secede from California and rejoin the USA.
I used to joke that the states who always wanted to leave were the ones that received more in Federal monies than they contributed. A net drain if you will on the national resources. That being the case, on very little thought, my response was let them go. Enjoy life without the rest of us holding you up.
Clearly not the case with California. What a mess that would make. I don’t know if (I can’t believe I’m writing this) the East Coast elite realize how irritating it is to live in CA and be so centrally important to the country’s economy and to be so ignored politically. CA is like dad’s wallet, ignored unless people want something. Truthfully, in many respects, CA already operates like its own nation. Lately, they’ve been doing it better too. In return, they are mocked by the rest of the nation, and allowed to contribute nothing to the national dialogue at election time. Hey, they’re “in the bag.”
I can see why the residents might feel as though they didn’t need the US. The US needs them. There is also a healthy dose of htat populist “Washington doesn’t give a shit about us” thrown in. Right now it’s just people letting off steam. With the wrong handling, I could see it building momentum amongst all groups, red or blue.
Pantastic is right, though. It would have to be negotiated, if it happened at all. I can’t really see the US letting CA go, however. It’s too critical to the US.
Long-winded answer to the question: I think the US government would, in almost all cases, choose war over letting secession happen. I don’t know how much popular support such a conflict would get, however. I’m not sure the national will is there to make it happen.
It runs down into Mexico before reaching the ocean. Over the years, we have done a lot of harm to that area’s ecology with this attitude. Lately we’re letting more water through and the area is starting to recover.
What is your point?
Ooh, another lover of cute little Austin! Which was lovely before runaway growth destroyed much of its charm–& gentrification is definitely turning it whiter. But I still have friends & family there.
(Tarrant County is Fort Worth, Travis is Austin, Bexar is San Antonio & Harris is Houston. (Hi, Clothalump!))
Only the tiniest idiot fringe of Texans favors secession…
No one is going to attempt to secede. It’s a stupid conversation.
If they did attempt, against the will of the US, yes, I’d support armed force to keep the union together.
I don’t want to live in The Republic of Texas, I want to live in The United States of America. If The State of Texas wanted to re-align my voting district, I might grumble a bit, but I’d go along without a fuss. If some idiots decide that it’d be a good idea to make the land I own a part of a different country, I’d not go along so willingly.
Who is to say the Republic of Texas wouldn’t allow subsequent secession of the city-states? Or some sort of increased autonomy?
But you would keep your neighbor in “your” country against his will? Texas could allow you to secede, or the city you live in could secede.
These days no war is necessary to foil secessionists. You just tie them up in legislatures and the courts until their anger dies down and they either forget what they wanted to secede for or get concessions.
Staten Islanders have threatened at times to secede from New York City (and actually voted to do so about 20 years ago, but were foiled by state and city political maneuvering). Curiously, the secession movement there recently had a revival.
I just can’t see California secessionists taking up arms to secede in order to preserve their rights to gun control. :dubious:
To answer one of your questions, no, the Civil War did not set a legal precedent. Texas v. White did. So did the Dred Scott Decision. People were a little bit nuttier back then and a lot more violent.
I favor secession in nearly any scenario, but it doesn’t have to be the solution. The US government could embrace federalism more fully and grant more autonomy to the states and people wouldn’t have to have a hissy fit over a presidential election. The president could simply be a guy or gal who is the executive in a government that limits itself to the enumerated powers of the constitution.
So you get compensated for your land and move to the new-look USA.
Our consumption is not limited by borders unless the government decides to do so.
Hey, our local Confederate Apologist is here!
Even most of the Republicans here realize that Texas can’t secede. We’v got lots of military/air/naval bases, for one thing. Then there’s NASA.
Wait, the argument against secession, is that it would be tied up in the courts and require votes, etc. to get something like that done, but we have members that believe that the POTUS alone has the authority to hand a state over to the Russians, and this was one of the primary fears that caused them to vote for Hillary?
Got it!
Smear terms are cool. Everyone is doing them on the internets.
Define “can’t”. Oh the us govt won’t allow it. The creativity of statists is inspiring.
I’d support a war against a unilateral secession, for most of the reasons mentioned.
The big one is what happens to the US military installations, personnel, and materiel in the seceding states.
On the other hand, I’m not opposed to a slow and careful dissolution of the US. If Texas or California want to secede, and the rest of the country wants them gone, too, then let’s figure it out. There are problems to be solved, but they might not be as problematic as the long-term consequences of staying together.
I don’t think we’re anywhere near that point yet.
Bam. Warning.
Do not insult other posters. You should know better than that.
If California wants to leave,
I would ask, “How can we help?”
I would think any competent secessionist overthrow would require convincing the local military forces to be on their side (or it would be the military’s idea in the first place), or secessionist forces would take them over directly.