Its really unlikely mostly because we’d have to go authoritarian as fuck to get the maga traitors out before they could seriously damage us from within
The Sierra Nevada make a great natural barrier on one side, then the big ass desert to the south, so getting large amounts of anything in once we cut ourselves off would actually be harder than youd think
If we successfully negotiated with Mexico, Canada, or someone to back our asses up we might be able to manage it just off the idea that bombing us to oblivion is a really bad idea for your supply of quite a few crops & your major entertainment for the country as well as the busy ass ports on our shores, and that’s before you consider how much the rest of the world would find such a move incredibly distasteful from a “holy shit what did you just do” aspect
All in all if ANY state can successfully pull it off, it’s California, but it’s not going to happen
I live in a rural part of a deep blue Northeast state and have been thinking about this a lot. Most of my surrounding area is predictably liberal college towns but the town next door to me is very MAGA and I have to drive through it to get to the highway. Honestly, I want to know what it takes to get those people to leave so that we can secure and expand a safe haven here…
There is also “constitutional convention” path to “a better union” (revoking current government). Secession when threatened by TX gets an ok vibe, but the “right wing states rights” gang sees invading California as completely hinged response, if they suggest it.
That would be nothing new. After Bonespurs pretty much disemboweled the Republican Party we really had an opportunity to get a solid progressive wave going. The trick is people have to show up.
States can not secede from the Union. That was Lincoln’s rational for reforming the Union. Since states didn’t have the right to leave, they had never left to begin with.
As we learned from the American Civil War, the southern states were incapable of seceding. However this isn’t the question at hand. The above user asked this:
The outcome of a war 160 years ago has utterly no relation to how a decision to secede would play out today. I use the word “process” in place of “whatever sequence of actions” might occur if states were to assert their intent to separate from the country. “Secession” might not even be an appropriate term - a resolution could be introduced, through all the correct and proper channels, for the United States to dissolve in an organized fashion, as the Soviet Union did in 1991. There’s really no point saying any political proposal “can’t” happen.
My point is the North employed violence in the form of a successful military campaign to maintain the Union. Where the North failed was following up with a re-education campaign to squash southern propaganda, such as the myth of the Lost Cause.
It’s not like the DON’T WALK sign at the crosswalk. If a state presented Congress with a demand to secede they would have to address it. Simply telling the state it was illegal wouldn’t be enough. The state could take whatever next step they want, the federal government would have to respond, and whatever was going to happen would happen. There’s no point speculating about the results, but if a state got to the point of actually starting this sequence rolling, it wouldn’t just stop with “sorry no you can’t it’s illegal.”
A jaywalker doesn’t petition the town council to cross the street illegally. They jaywalk. A state seceding could involve as little as a governor declaring their state left the Union. At that point the ball would be in the Federal Government’s court to set the record straight, to clarify that the state in fact did not secede.
The conversation wouldn’t end there. The state would retort to the effect that, “Oh yes we did,” and the central theme of the discussion would quickly shift away from proper use of the term “secede” and whether a jaywalker analogy works to what everybody is actually going to do about it.
Very. The last time, warfare was far less asymmetric than it is now. Millions of people would need to be well past the point of “dying for their values and ideals” before that would get traction politically.
What’s the process like?
There literally isn’t one, or at least, not an official one; we’re not the EU. One spot on a map says “no” and the bigger spot on the map around it says “LOL… oh wait you’re serious?” Then they fight.
Also, the optics are very different for a state like California or any other economic powerhouse in the union. These places make up a huge chunk of the country’s GDP, so losing them would cost a massive chunk of the tax base. Plus, that would reduce the overall coastline of the remainder. Combined these outcomes are strategically “very bad”, further motivating the use of force to counter it.
Secession is a very complex subject. Besides the issues you mentioned there are tons of consequences of using force. The Civil War was over 160 years ago and we still have lingering grudges. How would our wealthy feel about the impacts of another one on their investments? Or on US bond values and the value of the dollar itself? I feel like analyzing the possibilities is far beyond my Econ 101 knowledge, but it seems like resolving a secession issue with negotiation would be vastly preferable to all parties involved than any armed conflict. I think it would come down to how the most influential people thought any outcome would affect them.
Realistically how likely is secession? Pretty unlikely, right? What’s the process like?
Its really unlikely mostly because we’d have to go authoritarian as fuck to get the maga traitors out before they could seriously damage us from within
The Sierra Nevada make a great natural barrier on one side, then the big ass desert to the south, so getting large amounts of anything in once we cut ourselves off would actually be harder than youd think
If we successfully negotiated with Mexico, Canada, or someone to back our asses up we might be able to manage it just off the idea that bombing us to oblivion is a really bad idea for your supply of quite a few crops & your major entertainment for the country as well as the busy ass ports on our shores, and that’s before you consider how much the rest of the world would find such a move incredibly distasteful from a “holy shit what did you just do” aspect
All in all if ANY state can successfully pull it off, it’s California, but it’s not going to happen
I live in a rural part of a deep blue Northeast state and have been thinking about this a lot. Most of my surrounding area is predictably liberal college towns but the town next door to me is very MAGA and I have to drive through it to get to the highway. Honestly, I want to know what it takes to get those people to leave so that we can secure and expand a safe haven here…
There is also “constitutional convention” path to “a better union” (revoking current government). Secession when threatened by TX gets an ok vibe, but the “right wing states rights” gang sees invading California as completely hinged response, if they suggest it.
Come and take it, flyovers! War is a drone-making contest now.
And Trump will be Commander-in-Chief of the US Military.
Fun fact: Hitler’s involvement in the war was a huge factor in their defeat. He bought his own bullshit.
I’ve thought for a long time that the US will end up as a collection of smaller countries. Not looking forward to the transition period.
The very sad news is that the most likely owners of those smaller countries will be corporations ala banana republics.
That would be nothing new. After Bonespurs pretty much disemboweled the Republican Party we really had an opportunity to get a solid progressive wave going. The trick is people have to show up.
States can not secede from the Union. That was Lincoln’s rational for reforming the Union. Since states didn’t have the right to leave, they had never left to begin with.
https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/secessiontableofcontents.htm
And before anyone brings it up, Texas cannot secede.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/
“Can’t?” States are not supposed to secede. People aren’t supposed to commit crimes either, but they do. Some even get away with it.
As we learned from the American Civil War, the southern states were incapable of seceding. However this isn’t the question at hand. The above user asked this:
There is no such process.
The outcome of a war 160 years ago has utterly no relation to how a decision to secede would play out today. I use the word “process” in place of “whatever sequence of actions” might occur if states were to assert their intent to separate from the country. “Secession” might not even be an appropriate term - a resolution could be introduced, through all the correct and proper channels, for the United States to dissolve in an organized fashion, as the Soviet Union did in 1991. There’s really no point saying any political proposal “can’t” happen.
My point is the North employed violence in the form of a successful military campaign to maintain the Union. Where the North failed was following up with a re-education campaign to squash southern propaganda, such as the myth of the Lost Cause.
The only thing that prevented the south from seceding was Lincoln’s re-election. Literally.
Also, the North’s industrialization which allowed the North to outman, outgun, and outrailroad the South.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm
There is, it worked once and failed once in our history
Step 1: Declare independence from the other government
Step 2: don’t lose the war
Step 2 is the hard part, admittedly
They can’t do it legally without changing the law. Of course, the only laws that will matter soon are those that the GOP supports.
It’s not like the DON’T WALK sign at the crosswalk. If a state presented Congress with a demand to secede they would have to address it. Simply telling the state it was illegal wouldn’t be enough. The state could take whatever next step they want, the federal government would have to respond, and whatever was going to happen would happen. There’s no point speculating about the results, but if a state got to the point of actually starting this sequence rolling, it wouldn’t just stop with “sorry no you can’t it’s illegal.”
A jaywalker doesn’t petition the town council to cross the street illegally. They jaywalk. A state seceding could involve as little as a governor declaring their state left the Union. At that point the ball would be in the Federal Government’s court to set the record straight, to clarify that the state in fact did not secede.
The conversation wouldn’t end there. The state would retort to the effect that, “Oh yes we did,” and the central theme of the discussion would quickly shift away from proper use of the term “secede” and whether a jaywalker analogy works to what everybody is actually going to do about it.
The Federal Government’s current preferred medium of communication is UAVs. They leave little room for further discussion and semantics.
They could divide the state into as many as 5 states just to fuck with the liberal cities and the Senate though.
The only reason I see that as unlikely to happen is that all 5 would want to remain as the remaining state of Texas
They can be North Texas, West Texas, Central Texas, East Texas, and South Texas.
Texas, More Texas, Still Texas, Great Texas, Greater Texas, I Can’t Believe It’s Not Texas
I like this option. I don’t think it’s a good option exactly, but I like it.
Very. The last time, warfare was far less asymmetric than it is now. Millions of people would need to be well past the point of “dying for their values and ideals” before that would get traction politically.
There literally isn’t one, or at least, not an official one; we’re not the EU. One spot on a map says “no” and the bigger spot on the map around it says “LOL… oh wait you’re serious?” Then they fight.
Also, the optics are very different for a state like California or any other economic powerhouse in the union. These places make up a huge chunk of the country’s GDP, so losing them would cost a massive chunk of the tax base. Plus, that would reduce the overall coastline of the remainder. Combined these outcomes are strategically “very bad”, further motivating the use of force to counter it.
Secession is a very complex subject. Besides the issues you mentioned there are tons of consequences of using force. The Civil War was over 160 years ago and we still have lingering grudges. How would our wealthy feel about the impacts of another one on their investments? Or on US bond values and the value of the dollar itself? I feel like analyzing the possibilities is far beyond my Econ 101 knowledge, but it seems like resolving a secession issue with negotiation would be vastly preferable to all parties involved than any armed conflict. I think it would come down to how the most influential people thought any outcome would affect them.
deleted by creator