NationStates Jolt Archive

I suppose it depends on the circumstances. But at a quick guess, I'll go with Texas.

Texas would secede first and join Mexico, after Puerto Rico gets added to the nation. LOL irony.

Schleswig-Holstein. They're always up to no good.

Texas, but Utah, California, New York, and the Carolinas wouldn't be far behind. :p

Simple question. Which state would you say would be the most likely to secede?

Edit: Holy quadruple time-warps Batman!

Seriously: Idaho or Montana, they seem to have more than their fair share of people who think that leaving the US would be a good idea.

Hopefully: Florida, letting the rest of us escape from election snafus and hurricane clean up duties.

Actually-be-able-to-make-it: California, their infastructure and economy would actually be self-sufficent enough that it could probably survive without the rest of the US.

South Carolina, after attacking Fort Sumter!


Wait, what?

I could see Idaho seceding. This place is the last bastion of (true) freedom in America, in that everything isn't ultra-regulated.

Texas - aliens live there.

Actually-be-able-to-make-it: California, their infastructure and economy would actually be self-sufficent enough that it could probably survive without the rest of the US.
I remember Schwarzenegger in fact made mention of the fact that California could survive without the rest of the USA. If only I could find the article that this was reported in...

Texas would secede first and join Mexico...

...and then Hillary gets the GOP nomination!

I remember Schwarzenegger in fact made mention of the fact that California could survive without the rest of the USA. If only I could find the article that this was reported in...

I don't see them lasting without the Colorado River. And I'm sure that *if* they seceded, the rest of the SW US would find better uses for that water.

Wyoming. *nod*

No matter how you'd like to analyze it- Texas. Politically, Texans have always been suspicious of the federal government, as demonstrated by our ridiculously decentralizing state constitution. Socially, well... let's just say we're progressive enough to accept that fire has its perks.

Wyoming. *nod*

What, and let our primary source of coal go with them?

What, and let our primary source of coal go with them?
That's why you have this miraculous thing called trade. :)

What, and let our primary source of coal go with them?

My southern Illinois, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania ftw?

My southern Illinois, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania ftw?

All the cheap stuff has already been mined. There's still lots there, don't get me wrong, but it's expensive to get at.

That's why you have this miraculous thing called trade. :)
and that other miraculous thing called the National Guard which would storm the Legislature of any state threatening secession.
but for the sake of argument, Idaho, cause no one would notice.

That's why you have this miraculous thing called trade. :)

Indeed. Same thing for Colorado water. The states, if they all seceded, probably wouldn't fight each other because they'd all be interdependent with one another.

All the cheap stuff has already been mined. There's still lots there, don't get me wrong, but it's expensive to get at.

BS, i can go into my back yard right now(if i were at home that is) and dig about ten feet and find a crap load of coal. I have done it before.

And all it takes is a little advancment in technology. sure it costs in the short run, but in the long run it will be cheaper and more efficient. :)

and that other miraculous thing called the National Guard which would storm the Legislature of any state threatening secession.
Hardly miraculous. It impedes on the citizens' of the State right to self-determination, a necessary part of any democracy.

Since the last thread I have become obsessed with the idea of annexing Georgia. So I vote for them. Them and pudding, obviously.

Hardly miraculous. It impedes on the citizens' of the State right to self-determination, a necessary part of any democracy.

Each nation has the inherent right to prevent its own destruction or dissolution, regardless of how free its people are, or what kind of market it has.

Each nation has the inherent right to prevent its own destruction or dissolution, regardless of how free its people are, or what kind of market it has.
Nations aren't people - they're made up of them. They thus have no such right. Individuals within them have the right to defend against foreign invaders, but not to force other citizens from seceding.

New York City should. Yes, only the city.

New York City should. Yes, only the city.

Yes. And then it can join the nation of Brooklyn, if Brooklyn deems it acceptable.

Hawaii

All the cheap stuff has already been mined. There's still lots there, don't get me wrong, but it's expensive to get at.

Huh? Coal is massively cheap, so much that we want to turn it in to oil; it's by far the best of the fossil fuels in terms of cost and energy content, and there's enough of it to last us centuries (at present demand, of course).

Not to mention the huge deposits we can't even produce yet, which equal many, many times the amount we know of now.

realistically? Hawai'i has the best reason and probably the most people backing it.

realistically? Hawai'i has the best reason and probably the most people backing it.

Of course, they also have a shit ton to lose, even moreso than most other states. I mean, their economy and living standards would sink faster than Cuba's if we stuck a blockade on them; hell, even a restriction on tourism would hurt pretty badly.

Personally, I'd say Texas is best suited because it has pretty much everything it would need to survive either a retaliatory US blockade or invasion.

California when the mexicans take 100% of the power and join it with mexico. :p

Of course, they also have a shit ton to lose, even moreso than most other states. I mean, their economy and living standards would sink faster than Cuba's if we stuck a blockade on them; hell, even a restriction on tourism would hurt pretty badly.

I don't see the U.S. blockading them...we'd rather keep selling them food and sending them tourists rather than let Japan and China take over the job.

They'd be just fine.

I would say South Carolina, again. There are still a lot of people here hung up on the Civil War (or the War between the States, as it is called around here). There also seems to be a certain level of arrogance and independence here that I haven't found in the rest of the states. People around here don't even identify themselves with other Southern states. North Carolina would be far too northern with which to associate, and because they almost didn't secede the last time. Georgia was a penal colony with *gasp* the yankee city of Atlanta. And one couldn't even mention Alabama, Mississippi, or Louisiana because they weren't part of the original 13 colonies. Texas has a certain bit of it since it was its own nation, and it could function the most independently of any of the states if it seceded as would California. However, the drive to actually do it doesn't seem to be. SC still certainly has the will to do it again. It wouldn't last long, but that didn't stop it the last time.

Personally, I think people need to appreciate history, but also realize it's just that...history. It's in the past, move on.

New York City should. Yes, only the city.

I have seen your signature around, and I have to ask: is it a joke? Or is it at least intentionally ironic? I have no idea how someone could be a "proud" agnostic. You're proudly unwilling to commit to an opinion about the existence of God? I've always thought agnostics sort of don't care whether God exists or not, mostly because it doesn't matter. I could see a proud atheist, or a proud theist perhaps. If it is a joke, then sorry. But it's a pretty good one, I do chuckle a little bit each time I see it.

And there actually is a movement that is proposing that New York City, (the 5 boroughs) Nassau and Suffolk County, Westchester County, and I think Huntington County in New Jersey, (Whatever county is the further most North in Jersey) break off and form their own state. Mostly because the city economically supports the rest of New York State, and because the newly formed state would be totally badass. But that's unlikely to happen. At least until I become mayor it's unlikely to happen.

I have seen your signature around, and I have to ask: is it a joke? Or is it at least intentionally ironic? I have no idea how someone could be a "proud" agnostic. You're proudly unwilling to commit to an opinion about the existence of God? I've always thought agnostics sort of don't care whether God exists or not, mostly because it doesn't matter. I could see a proud atheist, or a proud theist perhaps. If it is a joke, then sorry. But it's a pretty good one, I do chuckle a little bit each time I see it.

And there actually is a movement that is proposing that New York City, (the 5 boroughs) Nassau and Suffolk County, Westchester County, and I think Huntington County in New Jersey, (Whatever county is the further most North in Jersey) break off and form their own state. Mostly because the city economically supports the rest of New York State, and because the newly formed state would be totally badass. But that's unlikely to happen. At least until I become mayor it's unlikely to happen.Yes, I am proud that I have no opinion on the matter. ;)

I like this idea; stop those blood sucking leeches up north! Damn upstaters. It's time we New York Cityans stand up for ourselves and say NO!

The rest of the country will secede from California

the state of hawaii has every moral right and historical and even geographical precident to return to its natural status of soverign and indipendent nation.

california has the economic capacity to do so successfully, even if the rest of the u.s. were to make war to try and prevent it from doing so. especialy so were it to form an alliance or even a new country with oregon, wasington state, british columbia, y.t. and alaska.

believe me, we in the pacific coast states have more in common with each other, and more interests in common, then we have with the rest of our respective countries as they currently exist.

=^^=
.../\...

However, Hawaii has a law that no "non-Hawaiian" can own land...The mass exodus of people who are already spending outrageous money leasing property would sink them. I guess it would depend on how the new Constitution was written....if it allowed non-Hawaiians to own land, then people would have a reason to stay. As it is now...if you don't have actual "native" blood, or aren't grandfathered in somehow...you aren't really a Hawaiian, even if you have lived there 75 years.

I don't know what State would secede, there are benefits and also negatives for everyone, I would guess. I would probably agree with those that have said California and/or Texas.

That's why you have this miraculous thing called trade. :)

You mean that thing they already do with it? ;)

Seriously, I find, "xxxxxx state is probably one of the few states that could be self sustaining", laughable. All states are independent at the root, joined by a common Constitution, which makes up the UNITED States of America. Each state an independent STATE with its own Constitution, policies, and economics. The feds like to make people think that no state could possibly survive on its own. I can't think of anything farther from the truth. All the feds do is take. They take our money, take our land, take credit for things that the states do. They like to pretend they are mighty and righteous on their thrones in DC. They like to pretend that without their mystical "guidance" and superior "leadership" that everything would cease to exist.

Alaska would seceed, and then join OPEC.

Texas would seceed shortly thereafter. The Texas Republican Guard would then invade Venezuela, just because they don't like Hugo Chavez. Much to their outrage, they'd lose, and become a Venezuelan puppet.

Then Hawaii would seceed and take its rightful place in the Third World.

The following day, Wyoming would seceed, and nobody would notice.

Next, Montana would seceed, and there would be much rejoicing.

And then both Dakotas would seceed, and get into war over which of them had seceeded first.

And on the seventh day, we'd wake up from this drug-induced hallucination, realize that nobody had actually seceeded from anything, and check into rehab AGAIN. :p

What a waste of my 1000th post...

I say either Alberta or Quebec, though Alberta... oh wait, you said "state" and not "province"? Ok then... uh... I don't know, one of them loser states would secede and no one would notice.

I seriously do not understand why Americans make this assumption that if a state secedes that everything possible should be done to destroy that state, salt their earth, burn their skies and make their rivers run with blood...

I mean, I'm a Unionist, I believe in Britain, but if there was a genuine majority of (for example) Scots who no longer wanted to be part of the UK, then I wouldn't hold that against them. I wouldn't give them the North Sea oil ('cos that's ours :D), but at the same time, I wouldn't want them all dead... because, whether or not they still believe it, in my eyes they're still my countrymen.

Honestly, for all these people who have talked about cutting off trade, emposing embargoes or even advocate violent intervention, just let me suggest that you have a massive national self-esteem problem.

California, Oregon & Washington wouls secede to form a green state.

I remember Schwarzenegger in fact made mention of the fact that California could survive without the rest of the USA.

Hey, so that's his trick to run for president after all ...

:cool: Alaska would seceed, and then join OPEC.

Or rejoin Russia maybe??

:cool:

Or rejoin Russia maybe??

Oh, now there's a funny idea that no sane person would seriously contemplate for one second. Wish I'd thought of it. :p

Simple question. Which state would you say would be the most likely to secede?

Edit: Holy quadruple time-warps Batman!

Mine. Massachusetts. We'd set up our own liberal democracy.

Plasma or possibly liquid

Actually-be-able-to-make-it: California, their infastructure and economy would actually be self-sufficent enough that it could probably survive without the rest of the US.
Accept for the fact they havent built a new power plant in.. what? 40? 50? years? If you call buying the majority of their Energy from surrounding states Self-Sufficent then Ya, I could see that.

Hardly miraculous. It impedes on the citizens' of the State right to self-determination, a necessary part of any democracy.
As I understand it many states in fact do not have the right to Sucede anymore, and "national Guard storming them" would probably be viewed as legal. Out of the southern states on Texas retains the right to Sucede whenever they like as part of their agreement for joining the union in the first place. As texas was a sovreign Nation, before a state. (As all States technically are suppose to be.)

and that other miraculous thing called the National Guard which would storm the Legislature of any state threatening secession.
but for the sake of argument, Idaho, cause no one would notice.

Thats why Texas has their Rangers. They are in fact a State Miltia. In other words, Texas has its own standing army still.

Mine. Massachusetts. We'd set up our own liberal democracy.

New Jersey is far ahead of you :p

New Jersey is far ahead of you :p

Yeah?

You mean that thing they already do with it? ;)

Seriously, I find, "xxxxxx state is probably one of the few states that could be self sustaining", laughable. All states are independent at the root, joined by a common Constitution, which makes up the UNITED States of America. Each state an independent STATE with its own Constitution, policies, and economics. The feds like to make people think that no state could possibly survive on its own. I can't think of anything farther from the truth. All the feds do is take. They take our money, take our land, take credit for things that the states do. They like to pretend they are mighty and righteous on their thrones in DC. They like to pretend that without their mystical "guidance" and superior "leadership" that everything would cease to exist.
Same here. If the USA consistently applied this "we need the resource x" mentality, they should go around conquering other countries to get it, because apparently trade isn't good enough. Well, to be honest, they already do so, sort of...


Honestly, for all these people who have talked about cutting off trade, emposing embargoes or even advocate violent intervention, just let me suggest that you have a massive national self-esteem problem.
I agree. They seem fixated on this issue.

Seriously, I find, "xxxxxx state is probably one of the few states that could be self sustaining", laughable. All states are independent at the root, joined by a common Constitution, which makes up the UNITED States of America. Each state an independent STATE with its own Constitution, policies, and economics. The feds like to make people think that no state could possibly survive on its own. I can't think of anything farther from the truth. All the feds do is take. They take our money, take our land, take credit for things that the states do. They like to pretend they are mighty and righteous on their thrones in DC. They like to pretend that without their mystical "guidance" and superior "leadership" that everything would cease to exist.

Considering that most states get more money from the federal government than they give to it, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that they would not survive on their own.

I seriously do not understand why Americans make this assumption that if a state secedes that everything possible should be done to destroy that state, salt their earth, burn their skies and make their rivers run with blood...
Mainly because the last time states seceded they immediately declared war on the rest of the U.S. And because they seceded because they were afraid slavery would be outlawed. And because of the armed treason bit. And because of the 600,000 people who died because of that. And because of the assassination of Lincoln. Basically, a bad experience with secession.

Mainly because the last time states seceded they immediately declared war on the rest of the U.S. And because they seceded because they were afraid slavery would be outlawed. And because of the armed treason bit. And because of the 600,000 people who died because of that. And because of the assassination of Lincoln. Basically, a bad experience with secession.

Just so.

Mainly because the last time states seceded they immediately declared war on the rest of the U.S. And because they seceded because they were afraid slavery would be outlawed. And because of the armed treason bit. And because of the 600,000 people who died because of that. And because of the assassination of Lincoln. Basically, a bad experience with secession.
What if a state seceded peacefully?

What if a state seceded peacefully?

They technically can't secede peacefully.

They technically can't secede peacefully.
Holding a referendum to secede and having the federal government is one way of doing so.

Holding a referendum to secede and having the federal government is one way of doing so.

For starters, secession is illegal. But even ignoring that, the federal government owns parts of every state. Should a state secede, it'd either cripple its chances of surviving on its own, as the parts owned by the federal government tend to move from one side of the state to the other, effectively cutting the state in half, preventing travel without trespassing, or it'd take those parts of the land, which would be theft. The government would respond to theft with force. Trespassing would not be responded to with force, but you can bet that the government would set something up to prevent it.

Edit: Fuck theft, it'd be an act of war.

I can't believe no one's said it yet.

The UK. I hope. :rolleyes: :p

##random state generator##
---------Vermont.---------

Holding a referendum to secede and having the federal government is one way of doing so.

If a state held a referendum and then told the federal government, "We're seceeding, it's been nice, but really, it's time to go," the Feds would answer, "I don't think so," and since they have all the really cool toys that go bang! and pow! and boom! the issue would very quickly be settled. It would only be legal for a state to seceed if the Congress agreed and that's not about to happen.

##random state generator##
---------Vermont.---------
I shit you not - I read that ickle Vermont has the most active secession movement in the entire United States.

If a state held a referendum and then told the federal government, "We're seceeding, it's been nice, but really, it's time to go," the Feds would answer, "I don't think so," and since they have all the really cool toys that go bang! and pow! and boom! the issue would very quickly be settled. It would only be legal for a state to seceed if the Congress agreed and that's not about to happen.
Sure it would. It just depends on whether you give the act it a silly name or not, something your politicians are true experts at. If it's, say, Texas, just introduce it in Congress as the "Deprive the Republicans of 34 Electoral Votes Act", and it'll pass tomorrow.

Yes, I know it's half baked, but a good try.

I shit you not - I read that ickle Vermont has the most active secession movement in the entire United States.

The random state generator worked!! :cool:

Vermont's the state where many of the towns and cities voted (or petitioned) to impeach Bush. I'll count them as one of the states most dissatisfied with the federal government.

Sure it would. It just depends on whether you give the act it a silly name or not, something your politicians are true experts at. If it's, say, Texas, just introduce it in Congress as the "Deprive the Republicans of 34 Electoral Votes Act", and it'll pass tomorrow.

Yes, I know it's half baked, but a good try.

Nope. Secession doesn't even work with Congressional permission. Any act that allowed it would be unconstitutional.

Schleswig-Holstein. They're always up to no good.

Spinnst du? Bayern (AKA Bavaria) would be the first to secede, end of story.

In the States, however, it would be Texas.

If a state held a referendum and then told the federal government, "We're seceeding, it's been nice, but really, it's time to go," the Feds would answer, "I don't think so," and since they have all the really cool toys that go bang! and pow! and boom! the issue would very quickly be settled. It would only be legal for a state to seceed if the Congress agreed and that's not about to happen.
Well, just don't pretend that this is a democratic procedure then. In fact, I would say it is the secessionary state that is justified in self-defence against an aggressive federal government that can't take no for an answer.

For starters, secession is illegal. But even ignoring that, the federal government owns parts of every state. Should a state secede, it'd either cripple its chances of surviving on its own, as the parts owned by the federal government tend to move from one side of the state to the other, effectively cutting the state in half, preventing travel without trespassing, or it'd take those parts of the land, which would be theft. The government would respond to theft with force. Trespassing would not be responded to with force, but you can bet that the government would set something up to prevent it.

Edit: Fuck theft, it'd be an act of war.
Erm, what if the State bought those parts of the land?

Nope. Secession doesn't even work with Congressional permission. Any act that allowed it would be unconstitutional.
I was just going on what Farnhamia said, so I wouldn't know that. Hell, where I'm from we don't even have a constitution.

Does the US constitution explicitly ban secession or does it just imply it?

Nope. Secession doesn't even work with Congressional permission. Any act that allowed it would be unconstitutional.

I was going to quibble (not disagree) but I decided to doo a little research in the Font of All Knowledge, and lo! Texas v. White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White) (1869). In that decision "the main rationale for the argument that states could not legally secede was derived from the Articles of Confederation's description of the American Union as perpetual. This, combined with the current Constitution's expressed goal of creating a more perfect Union, suggested that the United States was now more perfectly perpetual. Also cited was the statement in Article Four of the United States Constitution that 'The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.'"

Very interesting.

I don't think the Constitution specifically prohibits states from seceding.. That's why South Carolina went for it in 1861.

Edit: I know there are court decisions, but those can be overturned...

Nope. Secession doesn't even work with Congressional permission. Any act that allowed it would be unconstitutional.
Constitutions can (and should) be changed.

Constitutions can (and should) be changed.

Granted, but what's the big deal about secession?

Well, just don't pretend that this is a democratic procedure then. In fact, I would say it is the secessionary state that is justified in self-defence against an aggressive federal government that can't take no for an answer.

Been there, done that, and we have a bunch of rednecks waving Confederate flags to prove it. We fought a war over the rights of states to secede, and the secessionists lost. Regardless of any presumed legal or moral right to secede, the matter was settled, by force. Maybe that doesn't settle the issue in your opinion, but the Federal government isn't about to let any states go, no matter what you think.

Granted, but what's the big deal about secession?
Merely the right to self-determination. A nation is made up of people ultimately, and if some of those people want out and are willing to undertake the burden of doing so, I think they should be able to.

Been there, done that, and we have a bunch of rednecks waving Confederate flags to prove it. We fought a war over the rights of states to secede, and the secessionists lost. Regardless of any presumed legal or moral right to secede, the matter was settled, by force. Maybe that doesn't settle the issue in your opinion, but the Federal government isn't about to let any states go, no matter what you think.
Perhaps, but I'm not a fan of the "might makes right" school of thought. If the US government is, so be it.

Texas would never secede. They have special powers other states don't which they could use if the US ever started heading in a direction they didn't like.

Texas has the power to divide itself into as many as 5 pieces, and it can do this unilaterally. That would automatically grant Texas 8 extra senators.

That's a pretty big stick.

Merely the right to self-determination. A nation is made up of people ultimately, and if some of those people want out and are willing to undertake the burden of doing so, I think they should be able to.

I'm all for self-determination, but not everything people are unhappy with their government about is cause for secession. If you look at some of the secessionist movements, you'll find they boil down to "I don't want to pay taxes" or "I don't want to associate with [fill in the ethnic group of your choice]" or "I don't like the way the Federal Government does things."

Secession, while it may seem like fun and a gratifying way to stick it to The Man, isn't the answer. In the US, at least, we have a perfectly good system for affecting change: getting people who agree with you elected. Admittedly, this is not instant gratification and you don't get to have a cool new flag or snappy songs about overcoming oppression, but it is the generally accepted method for doing things in this country.

I won't stoop so low as to say "Love it of leave it," because there are plenty of things I myself don't love about the US, but that is, ultimately, an option. You can always go live somewhere else, even become a citizen somewhere else.

EDIT: Now, if you're being actively persecuted by your Government, that's a different story, though in Western countries, at least, there are ways to remedy even that.

I'm all for self-determination, but not everything people are unhappy with their government about is cause for secession. If you look at some of the secessionist movements, you'll find they boil down to "I don't want to pay taxes" or "I don't want to associate with [fill in the ethnic group of your choice]" or "I don't like the way the Federal Government does things."
As long as the state is not seceding to violate the rights of other human beings (in which case I agree it is legitimate to stop it, for the reason that individuals who don't respect the rights of others ought not have their rights respected), I am uninterested in the reason why. If it doesn't want federal services and doesn't want to pay taxes for them and pays off any dues owed, I see no problem.

Texas has the power to divide itself into as many as 5 pieces, and it can do this unilaterally. That would automatically grant Texas 8 extra senators.

Nope. It had the right to enter as as many as five states. Now it can only be divided up with the express consent of Congress.

Texas would never secede. They have special powers other states don't which they could use if the US ever started heading in a direction they didn't like.

Texas has the power to divide itself into as many as 5 pieces, and it can do this unilaterally. That would automatically grant Texas 8 extra senators.

That's a pretty big stick.
Not really, mainly because they don't have that power. The Ordinance of Annexation gave Texas the power to do that before, not after, admission.

"New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution."

Erm, what if the State bought those parts of the land?

I'm reasonably sure that the government is not ever going to sell the Interstate. Or the museums. And it's sure as fuck not going to sell the military bases.

Nope. It had the right to enter as as many as five states. Now it can only be divided up with the express consent of Congress.

Right, which is the case with any state (the part of the Constitution that governs creating new states).

After the November elections, Garrison Keillor wrote a column in which he proposed consolidating various states to reformat the Senate. What he said was:


Make Alaska and Wyoming Federal protectorates and give Halliburton a no-bid contract to run them.
Admit that Texas, Vermont and Utah have never really fitted in, and amend the Constitution to allow them to depart. Oh, and give Texas Oklahoma as a parting gift, and combine Utah with Nevada.
Make one state of New Hampshire and Rhode Island.
Make one state of Idaho and Montana.
I forgot, combine the Dakotas into one state called West Minnesota.

Then you'd be down to 40 states with 20 extra Senate seats. You could give some to ex-Presidents, former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, former Secretaries of State, a few to big cities like New York, Chicago, LA, Seattle. It was all facetious, of course, but there's some insight there.

Right, which is the case with any state (the part of the Constitution that governs creating new states).

After the November elections, Garrison Keillor wrote a column in which he proposed consolidating various states to reformat the Senate. What he said was:


Make Alaska and Wyoming Federal protectorates and give Halliburton a no-bid contract to run them.
Admit that Texas, Vermont and Utah have never really fitted in, and amend the Constitution to allow them to depart. Oh, and give Texas Oklahoma as a parting gift, and combine Utah with Nevada.
Make one state of New Hampshire and Rhode Island.
Make one state of Idaho and Montana.

Then you'd be down to 40 states with 20 extra Senate seats. You could give some to ex-Presidents, formar Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, former Secretaries of State, a few to big cities like New York, Chicago, LA, Seattle. It was all facetious, of course, but there's some insight there.

By the way, states cannot be combined. It's pretty much the only thing expressedly disallowed, I believe.

I'm reasonably sure that the government is not ever going to sell the Interstate. Or the museums. And it's sure as fuck not going to sell the military bases.
Ultimately the government is the agent of the taxpayers, at best. Given that these are tax-financed institutions, it is their financiers (i.e. the taxpayers) that must be reimbursed (this becomes far less complicated if all public property in a state was financed by its citizens). If these financiers agree to sell, the agent must act on their command. I know the government doesn't see things this way - why should it? It's not convenient for it.

By the way, states cannot be combined. It's pretty much the only thing expressedly disallowed, I believe.

Party-pooper. And I didn't say it wouldn't take some work and legislative ... cleverness.

Ultimately the government is the agent of the taxpayers, at best. Given that these are tax-financed institutions, it is their financiers (i.e. the taxpayers) that must be reimbursed (this becomes far less complicated if all public property in a state was financed by its citizens). If these financiers agree to sell, the agent must act on their command. I know the government doesn't see things this way - why should it? It's not convenient for it.

Not all the money the government has comes from taxes, though.

Not all the money the government has comes from taxes, though.
And what proportion of these public works is funded by money that is not derived from taxation? What are these alternate sources of funding?

And what proportion of these public works is funded by money that is not derived from taxation? What are these alternate sources of funding?

For starters, there the money gained from the Mint. That's an enormous amount. Secondly, there's the USPS, which not only pays for itself, but makes a profit. Thirdly, there's bonds. The primary investor in the government is the government itself, just like the primary investor in a corporation is the board of directors or whatever it's called nowadays.


Edit: And your taxation argument is flawed, since the money comes from taxes from the entire country's population. The referendum then could not be limited to the state in question.

California.

It has the material to support itself. the mix of people there is also very different from others. It also has its own tourists attractions.

only thing keeping it, is California has the second highest dept in the US.

By the way, states cannot be combined. It's pretty much the only thing expressedly disallowed, I believe.

Nope.

US Constitutiont, Article IV, section 3:
... no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdition of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

As you can see, states can be combined as long as the legislatures and the congress agree to do so.

Florida ... they already think they are a seperate country.

I seriously do not understand why Americans make this assumption that if a state secedes that everything possible should be done to destroy that state, salt their earth, burn their skies and make their rivers run with blood...

Neither do I. It boggles my mind that a nation founded on the principle of self determination would deny it to it's own people.


Honestly, for all these people who have talked about cutting off trade, emposing embargoes or even advocate violent intervention, just let me suggest that you have a massive national self-esteem problem.

Quite so. Americans seem especially prone to the "the size of my country equals the size of my dick" mentality. Not only that, we seem to believe that the US Federal government is some sort of divinely ordained thing, and to want to not live under it is the worst sort of heresy.

Personally, I'd prefer to see the Federal government dissolved and NAFTA revamped to be a more complete economic union. In these days of globalization and assymetric warfare I fail to see the need to maintain a political union much more suited to protect the states from the imperial wars of the 1900s. If anything, the Federal government gets us in a lot more trouble than it's worth.

Whatever state Washington DC is in (i'm british). Even though it will never happen, and even though they would have no cahnce, i'd like to see a larger indian reservation claim independence. My little fantasy. Probably the Navajo or Hopi.

California.

It has the material to support itself. the mix of people there is also very different from others. It also has its own tourists attractions.

only thing keeping it, is California has the second highest dept in the US.
Any State would have the means to support itself. Look at all the countries with populations smaller than the smallest State, Vermont. (623,908)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

Whatever state Washington DC is in (i'm british). Even though it will never happen, and even though they would have no cahnce, i'd like to see a larger indian reservation claim independence. My little fantasy. Probably the Navajo or Hopi.
DC isn't in a state.

Whatever state Washington DC is in (i'm british). Even though it will never happen, and even though they would have no cahnce, i'd like to see a larger indian reservation claim independence. My little fantasy. Probably the Navajo or Hopi.

DC isn't in a state.

And the reservations already are independent nations. Sort of.

Personally, I'd prefer to see the Federal government dissolved and NAFTA revamped to be a more complete economic union. In these days of globalization and assymetric warfare I fail to see the need to maintain a political union much more suited to protect the states from the imperial wars of the 1900s. If anything, the Federal government gets us in a lot more trouble than it's worth.
:fluffle:

I'd like the same for the EU.

Mine. Massachusetts. We'd set up our own liberal democracy.

Maine and the rest of New England would support this idea, and we'd be willing to join you.

Neither do I. It boggles my mind that a nation founded on the principle of self determination would deny it to it's own people.




Quite so. Americans seem especially prone to the "the size of my country equals the size of my dick" mentality. Not only that, we seem to believe that the US Federal government is some sort of divinely ordained thing, and to want to not live under it is the worst sort of heresy.

Personally, I'd prefer to see the Federal government dissolved and NAFTA revamped to be a more complete economic union. In these days of globalization and assymetric warfare I fail to see the need to maintain a political union much more suited to protect the states from the imperial wars of the 1900s. If anything, the Federal government gets us in a lot more trouble than it's worth.

What? :confused:

Alaska. Everyone knows they are Canadians anyways.

What? :confused:
Probably a typo.;)

Probably a typo.;)

One hopes so. :D

One hopes so. :D
But on NSG you never quite know...

But on NSG you never quite know...

Or to quote the late, great Fats Waller, "One never knows, do one?"

Or to quote the late, great Fats Waller, "One never knows, do one?"
Now, that's one to quote at my interview tomorrow:D

Now, that's one to quote at my interview tomorrow:D

Interview for what? Are you seceding from somewhere or looking to become a sovereign state on your own?

I'm curious to know how one can justify the American Revolution, which is essentially a secession from the British Empire, but deny secession to the US states. Even if the Constitution might prohibit secession, I doubt anything by Parliament allowed secession either.

Texas, duh!

Hmm, I think either Texas, Hawaii, California (maybe California, Oregon, and Washington) would be likely to secede first.

Most of the reasons have already been mentioned here- so it's useless to reiterate them.

But something interesting about Texas is in its agreement for statehood, the US government has allowed it to actually break into 5 separate states if it wanted to. Legally. And there's more state control with oil stuff as opposed to national. Like Texas gets 10 miles of offshore drilling as opposed to 3.

Even if it doesn't secede from the nation, it could be 5 gerrymandered states without any problem...

I'm curious to know how one can justify the American Revolution, which is essentially a secession from the British Empire, but deny secession to the US states. Even if the Constitution might prohibit secession, I doubt anything by Parliament allowed secession either.

Quite simple: we won, hence it was justified. The South lost, so their secession wasn't justified. Remember, rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as, "our rebellion;" it is only in the the third person, "their rebellion" that it becomes illegal.

Washington could survive on its own. We are home to a few megacorporations, not to mention I doubt raising a Washington military would be much of a problem - for a 'blue' state, we have a lot of guns, not to mention the military facilities. We might even be able to swipe an aircraft carrier - the Abraham Lincoln is crewed mostly by Washington natives, and is based out of Everett.

Of course, Washington would not remain alone. We'd quickly rope in British Columbia, Yukon, and Alaska - BC is basically Washington, only Canadian, and Washington politicians consider Alaska within our 'sphere of influence'.

Then we get Oregon, California, and Hawaii to join us, and the Pacific Federation emerges on the world stage, a superpower at birth. In addition to most of the US IT industry (Microsoft AND Silicon Valley), Alaskan oil, and the businesses in California, we'd inherit the ENTIRE US PACIFIC FLEET, including the nuclear submarines.

Hardly miraculous. It impedes on the citizens' of the State right to self-determination, a necessary part of any democracy.

I think you overstate the necessity of self-determination toa democracy. We found out in 1865 that simply quitting isn't an option.

Your mother.

I'm curious to know how one can justify the American Revolution, which is essentially a secession from the British Empire, but deny secession to the US states. Even if the Constitution might prohibit secession, I doubt anything by Parliament allowed secession either.

We wanted to secede, and we did it. Britain couldn't stop us or take us back, so we ended up winning independence because we won the war. They can try and secede, but there's no guarantee they'll succeed when the troops are sent in.

I personally would crush any secession movement as a threat to national stability.

We wanted to secede, and we did it. Britain couldn't stop us or take us back, so we ended up winning independence because we won the war. They can try and secede, but there's no guarantee they'll succeed when the troops are sent in.

I personally would crush any secession movement as a threat to national stability.

Hm. Why is stability of such high value?

Just a thought here, but I wanted to point out the strangeness of discussing the legality of secession. By the very definition, the secessors are no longer bound by law. The secessees might not feel that way, but for that brief moment before the national guard storms in, the secessors are truly free.

I personally would crush any secession movement as a threat to national stability.

How does secession threaten national stability?

We wanted to secede, and we did it. Britain couldn't stop us or take us back, so we ended up winning independence because we won the war. They can try and secede, but there's no guarantee they'll succeed when the troops are sent in.

I personally would crush any secession movement as a threat to national stability.

Seriously? You would kill Americans, en masse, because they didn't want to follow the same leader as you.

If your answer is seriously 'yes', then I despair.

Would britain be allowed to secede?

New Jersey...end of story.

I do find pudding most enjoyable.

I think you overstate the necessity of self-determination toa democracy. We found out in 1865 that simply quitting isn't an option.
No, what we found out is that brute force determined that the federal government would have its way no matter what. Let's not confuse that with democracy prevailing though.

Probably a typo.;)

Yep. I'd meant to say the 1800s. I was tired, and the half bottle of angevin wine I'd drank didn't help with the whole typing thing.

I personally would crush any secession movement as a threat to national stability.

You always strike me as one of the most rational people on this board, until secession is brought up.

We wanted to secede, and we did it. Britain couldn't stop us or take us back, so we ended up winning independence because we won the war. They can try and secede, but there's no guarantee they'll succeed when the troops are sent in.

I personally would crush any secession movement as a threat to national stability.
Define nation and define stability. If Texans began to see themselves as Texans and not Americans, then they can hardly be considered spiritually a part of the American nation, and continuing being a part of a nation they no longer feel attached to could be argued to interfere with their national stability. Likewise, keeping a secessionist State in the union - especially one of the larger ones - could endanger the stability of government. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans would have a majority in Congress or the Electoral College if the state were large enough, which would cause problems: either Republicans and Dems govern together or with the secessionist bloc of politicians. Both could cause problems.

South Carolina, hah I win! :p

Has to be Hawaii(SP).

Mainly because the last time states seceded they immediately declared war on the rest of the U.S. And because they seceded because they were afraid slavery would be outlawed. And because of the armed treason bit. And because of the 600,000 people who died because of that. And because of the assassination of Lincoln. Basically, a bad experience with secession.

The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. The southern states, which happened to be very wealthy thanks in large to cotton and other cash crops, were tired of the federal governments hands in their pockets. When the war started (1861), there were slave owners all over the Union, not just the south. You may also take note that the Emancipation Proclamation did not come about until January 1863. It was propaganda designed to give the south more problems, and also to keep Britain and France from recognizing the Confederation. Because of the large cotton production in the south, Britain and France were interested in what could happen. This was controversial in the north, because it was not a law passed by Congress, it was executive order of the president, and there were a number of slaves in the northern states. It essentially made all slave owners enemies of the Union.

The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. The southern states, which happened to be very wealthy thanks in large to cotton and other cash crops, were tired of the federal governments hands in their pockets. When the war started (1861), there were slave owners all over the Union, not just the south. You may also take note that the Emancipation Proclamation did not come about until January 1863. It was propaganda designed to give the south more problems, and also to keep Britain and France from recognizing the Confederation. Because of the large cotton production in the south, Britain and France were interested in what could happen. This was controversial in the north, because it was not a law passed by Congress, it was executive order of the president, and there were a number of slaves in the northern states. It essentially made all slave owners enemies of the Union.

Slaveowners all over the union? Only three states in the Union possessed slaves, and they were only kept from seceding by direct action from the federal government.
Not about slavery? The Confederacy explicitly stated that it had seceded to preserve slavery. Try again.

Any State would have the means to support itself. Look at all the countries with populations smaller than the smallest State, Vermont. (623,908)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

Vermont isn't the smallest state by size or population.

Vermont isn't the smallest state by size or population.

By population, it's Wyoming.
By size, it's Rhode Island. (DC is not a state.)

Wyoming, right?

aye, they have around 440,000 people unless I'm mistaken.

aye, they have around 440,000 people unless I'm mistaken.

And they has only one congressional representative ever since they became a state. And one of the reasons they gave voting rights to women is that they have very few voters.

im going to go with south dakota. its always the quite ones that snap.

im also still waiting for the great amish uprising. sure they act peacful now, but secretly they have been building a secret underground network and stockpilling weapons.

Florida, I've sent people over there with spades to slowly between Florida and the rest of the US. It will then float accross the Atlantic so they can hang with us in Britain.

That way we get Disney World.:p

We wanted to secede, and we did it. Britain couldn't stop us or take us back, so we ended up winning independence because we won the war. They can try and secede, but there's no guarantee they'll succeed when the troops are sent in.

I personally would crush any secession movement as a threat to national stability.

This is essentially an ethically authoritarian argument. It's based basically upon the idea that if you have the power to do something you should do it. If it is justified for me to secede because I can get away with it, and it is justified for you stop me from seceding because you can get away with it, then why not extend it to anything? It's essentially a might-makes-right situation, and it's totally irrational.

The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. The southern states, which happened to be very wealthy thanks in large to cotton and other cash crops, were tired of the federal governments hands in their pockets. When the war started (1861), there were slave owners all over the Union, not just the south. You may also take note that the Emancipation Proclamation did not come about until January 1863. It was propaganda designed to give the south more problems, and also to keep Britain and France from recognizing the Confederation. Because of the large cotton production in the south, Britain and France were interested in what could happen. This was controversial in the north, because it was not a law passed by Congress, it was executive order of the president, and there were a number of slaves in the northern states. It essentially made all slave owners enemies of the Union.

The South overestimated the power of "King Cotton" as their ticket to, effectively, blackmail foreign aid. The British just increased their cotton production in Egypt and India. And the Emancipation Proclamation only applied, "to those states which had taken up arms against the Federal government," leaving the slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, west Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware alone.

Maine and the rest of New England would support this idea, and we'd be willing to join you.

Why thank you.

If any state were to secede, It would be either Texas, California, Utah, Alaska, or Hawaii. Texas was once its own country; California might as well be its own country. Utah's just weird like that, and Alaska and Hawaii? They're overseas. They might as well be foreign countries. Puerto Rico is considered more of a state than they are, and Alaska and Hawaii actually *are* states. Plus Hawaii used to be its own country too.

However, I'm hopign for Virginia, mostly because NC would close its borders to the Republic of Virginia, so those idiot Virginians would quit moving down here and urbanizing it.