NationStates Jolt Archive

Some one on another thread mentioned that now and again California tried to make a break for it. I assume this refers to some 'historical' events.
My questions is, if the vast majority of the citizens agreed they wanted to be a new country, could they? and how would they do it?

Some one on another thread mentioned that now and again California tried to make a break for it. I assume this refers to some 'historical' events.
My questions is, if the vast majority of the citizens agreed they wanted to be a new country, could they? and how would they do it?

What would happen?

See:

"American History...1861-1864"

Being the fifth largest economy, I'm guessin' they wouldn't let us go. So seperation might have to involve fault lines.

There is a art series/music collection/film about the historical art, music and writings of the great War of the Californias. You know, when Northern and Southern California went to war? No, never happened, this guy just imagined it. It's called In Smog and Thunder. Pretty cool.

I should have more to say on the subject, yet I don't...

It's unlikely that a majority of citizens would vote to secede. It's even less likely that California could find enough California-loyal citizens to halt the US military forces that would storm Sacramento within a matter of hours. Barring national catastrophe, it's pretty much impossible for any state to successfully secede, let alone maintain independence. The USA would (well, I hope) never allow things to deteriorate to the point of allowing a plebiscite regarding secession, anyhow. Any responsible national government would declare martial law and seize the state governmental apparatus long before then.
This topic is probably related to the idea that Mexicans would gain a majority vote in California then vote to secede. The chances of such are slim, and successful secession to Mexico would be doomed to failure, anyhow.

Not being an American I cannot say anything about the actual procedures involved but I would back what an earlier poster said in reference to the US Civil War.

The Federal Government would never allow it.

Which is a shame as then you could have President Arnold Shwarzaneggar (sp) in charge of the Republic of California! :D

I like Arnold as Governor, I won £10 as a bet on him winning.

:twisted:

So if all the citizens (unlikely) voted to set up their own country, the federal gov would use force of arms to quell a democratic process, enforce martial law and form some form of dictatorship?
Sounds like the home of democracy to me, more like playing at it with dictatorial thoughts always at the back of their minds.
So even if the majority of the rest of the US agreed with them?
Can’t get my head around how a country can force democracy on others then contemplate not practicing it at home.

So if all the citizens (unlikely) voted to set up their own country, the federal gov would use force of arms to quell a democratic process, enforce martial law and form some form of dictatorship?that's Abraham Lincoln for you

If California was anarchist, I'd support it's succession. I think it would be cool if New York suceeded from the universe. :lol:

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

What would happen?

See:

"American History...1861-1864"

Wow Lee must of missed the memo!

1865! :P

So if all the citizens (unlikely) voted to set up their own country, the federal gov would use force of arms to quell a democratic process, enforce martial law and form some form of dictatorship?
Sounds like the home of democracy to me, more like playing at it with dictatorial thoughts always at the back of their minds.
So even if the majority of the rest of the US agreed with them?
Can’t get my head around how a country can force democracy on others then contemplate not practicing it at home.

You can't secede from something unless everyone else also agrees or atleast a majority does. Thats like objecting to do something in the midst of a war, because you don't like it.

It's unlikely that every state would vote for autonomy...but if it were to happen and every other state backed it there might be nothing we cld do...

Can’t get my head around how a country can force democracy on others then contemplate not practicing it at home.

Well for one thing, the US has never been a true Democracy....

So if all the citizens (unlikely) voted to set up their own country, the federal gov would use force of arms to quell a democratic process, enforce martial law and form some form of dictatorship?
Sounds like the home of democracy to me, more like playing at it with dictatorial thoughts always at the back of their minds.
So even if the majority of the rest of the US agreed with them?
Can’t get my head around how a country can force democracy on others then contemplate not practicing it at home.
The USA is an indivisible union. Ignoring your ramblings about morality, simple pragmatism dictates that no state would ever be allowed to leave. The only way I can see it happening is if the USA as a country no longer functions (as a result of nuclear war, plague, what have you), in which case the point would be moot anyhow.

If California was anarchist, I'd support it's succession. I think it would be cool if New York suceeded from the universe. :lol:
California's succession to what, power? By the way, is suceeded a word? *Checks the dictionary.* Well, maybe in that alternate universe of which you were speaking. :)

California won't leave the US, there's too much at stake for it politcally and economically (especially with the current political climate there). Besides, we all know CA is going to fall into the ocean someday anyway.

This is a great idea.

Save the waters of Colorado for the people who live in Colorado, Utah and Arizona. Stop wasting it on irrigation in the Imperial valley.

Stop importing electricty into California, draining the regional grids. This was part of the downfall of Enron. More power to the rest of us.

Move the San Diego naval base to Portland; they need the jobs.

Deny a visa to any brainless movie star or overpaid athlete from California.

I'd miss San Fran, tho; maybe we could make her an independent city-state, like Gdansk.

If California was anarchist, I'd support it's succession. I think it would be cool if New York suceeded from the universe. :lol:

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

My GF is from NY and I'm Texan. Maybe both should succede :lol:

Jim

As a Californian, I'd like to be known as a "Californian" rather than an "American."

We could be extremely powerful on our own. We can take Hawaii and Alaska with us, seeing as how we'll soon be seperated from the U.S. physically.

Good gawd. My children's children's children would be learning about President Arnold Scwh., the 1st President of the Republic of California!

And I believe we only ATTEMPTED to be a nation ONCE...around the time of the Mexican War. It was only for a few days though, didn't really last long enough to be important.

As a Californian, I'd like to be known as a "Californian" rather than an "American."

We could be extremely powerful on our own. We can take Hawaii and Alaska with us, seeing as how we'll soon be seperated from the U.S. physically.

Good gawd. My children's children's children would be learning about President Arnold Scwh., the 1st President of the Republic of California!

Never happen. The spoiled brat that Is the usa won't let you all go. :twisted:

We tried.

Jim

As a Californian, I'd like to be known as a "Californian" rather than an "American."

We could be extremely powerful on our own. We can take Hawaii and Alaska with us, seeing as how we'll soon be seperated from the U.S. physically.

Good gawd. My children's children's children would be learning about President Arnold Scwh., the 1st President of the Republic of California!

Never happen. The spoiled brat that Is the usa won't let you all go. :twisted:

We tried.

Jim

if you call THAT trying...then I'd call you a monkey

As a Californian, I'd like to be known as a "Californian" rather than an "American."

We could be extremely powerful on our own. We can take Hawaii and Alaska with us, seeing as how we'll soon be seperated from the U.S. physically.

Good gawd. My children's children's children would be learning about President Arnold Scwh., the 1st President of the Republic of California!

Never happen. The spoiled brat that Is the usa won't let you all go. :twisted:

We tried.

Jim

if you call THAT trying...then I'd call you a monkey

Would you care to guess where the two largest millitary bases in the world are?

Texas.

ROTFLMAO

Jim

By the way, is suceeded a word? *Checks the dictionary.* Well, maybe in that alternate universe of which you were speaking. :)you had the dictionary right there and you still missed it like most posters on this thread. Secede

And I believe we only ATTEMPTED to be a nation ONCE...around the time of the Mexican War. It was only for a few days though, didn't really last long enough to be important.
After the Bear Flag revolt we where a nation for a month. That's when a bunch of American settlers went to Gen Vallejo to start a revolution and he just surrendered instead.

Every now and then someone pops an initiative to seperate. Then theres those 'State of Jefferson' people up North, extra North that is.

Enron was f'n us.

Meh.

We were a nation twice. lost both times.

I'm going to NY.

Jim

By the way, is suceeded a word? *Checks the dictionary.* Well, maybe in that alternate universe of which you were speaking. :)you had the dictionary right there and you still missed it like most posters on this thread. Secede
When, pray tell, did I misspell "secede"? As for the dictionary thing, it was a joke. I didn't actually check the dictionary..
Big Jim P, New Yawk is superior to California, anyhow. Well, the City itself is.
*Watches as the flames roll in.*

So if all the citizens (unlikely) voted to set up their own country, the federal gov would use force of arms to quell a democratic process, enforce martial law and form some form of dictatorship?
Sounds like the home of democracy to me, more like playing at it with dictatorial thoughts always at the back of their minds.
So even if the majority of the rest of the US agreed with them?
Can’t get my head around how a country can force democracy on others then contemplate not practicing it at home.

You can't secede from something unless everyone else also agrees or atleast a majority does. Thats like objecting to do something in the midst of a war, because you don't like it.

It's unlikely that every state would vote for autonomy...but if it were to happen and every other state backed it there might be nothing we cld do...
Not being an American some of this is new to me. But the gist of it appears to be that no state has any rights to self determination.
Once your in, even if you were forced in, you can never get out?
Sounds a less and less free place the more I hear about it.

So if all the citizens (unlikely) voted to set up their own country, the federal gov would use force of arms to quell a democratic process, enforce martial law and form some form of dictatorship?
Sounds like the home of democracy to me, more like playing at it with dictatorial thoughts always at the back of their minds.
So even if the majority of the rest of the US agreed with them?
Can’t get my head around how a country can force democracy on others then contemplate not practicing it at home.

You can't secede from something unless everyone else also agrees or atleast a majority does. Thats like objecting to do something in the midst of a war, because you don't like it.

It's unlikely that every state would vote for autonomy...but if it were to happen and every other state backed it there might be nothing we cld do...
Not being an American some of this is new to me. But the gist of it appears to be that no state has any rights to self determination.
Once your in, even if you were forced in, you can never get out?
Sounds a less and less free place the more I hear about it.
Right, and the incredibly noble nation from which you hail would just allow the most important province, city, what have you to just leave, right? That's utter bullshit. No matter the nation, or the leaders, or the year, no one's allowed to leave a country without war occuring. By the way, as you've already admitted yourself, you don't know much about the USA. Be aware that the clauses in all state ratification treaties state that once you join, you can never leave the Union. Potential states have every opportunity not to join, just look at Puerto Rico.

No my noble nation is quite happy to trundle slowly down the path of devolution. Allowing the citizens of the countries involved to determine their own future for better or worse. As an English man why should I have any say on a decision like 'should Scotland stay part of the union?' I hope is does as I like the place and am a bit of a traditionalist, but I wouldn't want to invade and kill my very close neighbours if they voted to leave.
Any such no opt out contract just smacks to me of an undemocratic process. So millions of people can’t decide their future because of a decision that was made generations ago by thousands of people. Ooh great.
I have no problem with this as long as the country that has these draconian rules does not state to all and sundry it is the home of democracy and freedom and tell them how things should be done.
As to allowing one of their best bits to go off, that’s the down side of democracy not everyone will agree and not everyone thinks of the greater good.
I admit my ignorance about the act of union or whatever your version is called. That does not disqualify me from commenting on what I perceive as it’s problems.

No my noble nation is quite happy to trundle slowly down the path of devolution. Allowing the citizens of the countries involved to determine their own future for better or worse. As an English man why should I have any say on a decision like 'should Scotland stay part of the union?' I hope is does as I like the place and am a bit of a traditionalist, but I wouldn't want to invade and kill my very close neighbours if they voted to leave.
You might not want to force Scotland to stay. However, I highly doubt the government of the UK (or any other, in the same situation) would sit idly by and let them leave.
Any such no opt out contract just smacks to me of an undemocratic process. So millions of people can’t decide their future because of a decision that was made generations ago by thousands of people. Ooh great.
Too bad I don't care. Preserving the Union is the most important governmental function. Any American administration that fails to preserve the Union at all costs ought to be overthrown.

I have no problem with this as long as the country that has these draconian rules does not state to all and sundry it is the home of democracy and freedom and tell them how things should be done.
We'll state what we wish. Hypocrisy is a valuable tool in diplomacy. Countries bloody well know when they're being hypocritical, but knowledge and admission of such are completely different beasts.

As to allowing one of their best bits to go off, that’s the down side of democracy not everyone will agree and not everyone thinks of the greater good.
Too bad, preservation of the Union supersedes any other considerations. This is simply pragmatism, the USA would NEVER allow the most important state in the Union to simply leave. Letting California go would severely damage our economy and national prestige. Hell, letting them go could pave the way for every two-bit wannabe President to incite secession movements in their states.
I admit my ignorance about the act of union or whatever your version is called. That does not disqualify me from commenting on what I perceive as it’s problems.
I didn't say you weren't allowed to comment. Comment all you want, it doesn't change the fact that from a purely realistic standpoint no state in the USA would ever be allowed to leave. Though perhaps if the federal government failed in its duty enough to let a plebiscite regarding secession come up, it would be time for a change. That kind of incompetence couldn't be tolerated by any sane people.

No my noble nation is quite happy to trundle slowly down the path of devolution. Allowing the citizens of the countries involved to determine their own future for better or worse. As an English man why should I have any say on a decision like 'should Scotland stay part of the union?' I hope is does as I like the place and am a bit of a traditionalist, but I wouldn't want to invade and kill my very close neighbours if they voted to leave.
You might not want to force Scotland to stay. However, I highly doubt the government of the UK (or any other, in the same situation) would sit idly by and let them leave.
Any such no opt out contract just smacks to me of an undemocratic process. So millions of people can’t decide their future because of a decision that was made generations ago by thousands of people. Ooh great.
Too bad I don't care. Preserving the Union is the most important governmental function. Any American administration that fails to preserve the Union at all costs ought to be overthrown.

I have no problem with this as long as the country that has these draconian rules does not state to all and sundry it is the home of democracy and freedom and tell them how things should be done.
We'll state what we wish. Hypocrisy is a valuable tool in diplomacy. Countries bloody well know when they're being hypocritical, but knowledge and admission of such are completely different beasts.

As to allowing one of their best bits to go off, that’s the down side of democracy not everyone will agree and not everyone thinks of the greater good.
Too bad, preservation of the Union supersedes any other considerations. This is simply pragmatism, the USA would NEVER allow the most important state in the Union to simply leave. Letting California go would severely damage our economy and national prestige. Hell, letting them go could pave the way for every two-bit wannabe President to incite secession movements in their states.
I admit my ignorance about the act of union or whatever your version is called. That does not disqualify me from commenting on what I perceive as it’s problems.
I didn't say you weren't allowed to comment. Comment all you want, it doesn't change the fact that from a purely realistic standpoint no state in the USA would ever be allowed to leave. Though perhaps if the federal government failed in its duty enough to let a plebiscite regarding secession come up, it would be time for a change. That kind of incompetence couldn't be tolerated by any sane people.
That's it agreed then. It would be bad for the US for states to split off so regardless of the morality or 'democracy' of it, it would not be allowed to happen.
I agree hypocricy is a valuable tool (use it all the time).
I am happy my questions have been answered thanks.