Can a state break away from the Union and declare independence?

[mugs]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Amused
It was tried once. Lots of people died.

Hah, yeah.

And I wouldn't say California and Texas are economically independent. Every state benefits from being a part of the whole.

Umm, no. California actually pays out more money to Uncle Sam than it receives back. Basically, we subsidize the South.

<------------------ My point



<snip a few hundred lines>

Your head




I live in New Jersey. Of all the states in the country, New Jersey gets the least money back for every dollar we pay in federal taxes. Not always, sometimes it's Connecticut, but we're always down there at the bottom, getting screwed. So I guess by your logic, New Jersey is even more capable of seceding than California, right?

But wait - what would New Jersey be without New York and Philadelphia? I'll tell you what it wouldn't be - the state with the highest per capita income in the US (again, sometimes it's Connecticut, sometimes NJ). California depends on other states too. As I said previously in this thread, you depend on other states for electricity. About half of the electricity from the Hoover Dam goes to California. The Hoover Dam is not in California. As Amused said, you depend on other states for water.

Not to mention California would not have become as prosperous as it is today if it wasn't the US's gateway to the Pacific. Just like shipping helped New York become what it is. If California wasn't part of the US, it'd be a lot like Mexico today.

California would be nothing without the rest of us, and the smug attitude that you don't need us just makes everyone else dislike Californians more.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: mugs



I live in New Jersey.

<rest of post snipped>

I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: mugs

I live in New Jersey. Of all the states in the country, New Jersey gets the least money back for every dollar we pay in federal taxes. Not always, sometimes it's Connecticut, but we're always down there at the bottom, getting screwed. So I guess by your logic, New Jersey is even more capable of seceding than California, right?

But wait - what would New Jersey be without New York and Philadelphia? I'll tell you what it wouldn't be - the state with the highest per capita income in the US (again, sometimes it's Connecticut, sometimes NJ). California depends on other states too. As I said previously in this thread, you depend on other states for electricity. About half of the electricity from the Hoover Dam goes to California. The Hoover Dam is not in California. As Amused said, you depend on other states for water.

Not to mention California would not have become as prosperous as it is today if it wasn't the US's gateway to the Pacific. Just like shipping helped New York become what it is. If California wasn't part of the US, it'd be a lot like Mexico today.

California would be nothing without the rest of us, and the smug attitude that you don't need us just makes everyone else dislike Californians more.

Nations don't exist in vacuums. Of course California would still need to purchase natural resources from other places. So what? We do already. The fact that it would be divided by national rather than state borders makes little difference; and this applies to commerce as well.

Also, I'm not claiming California should never have joined the U.S., just that we would be better off now on our own. Actually, if the U.S. forced the South to secede, I would be fine with that as an alternative. =)

By the way, you do realize I'm being somewhat sarcastic, right?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: mugs

I live in New Jersey. Of all the states in the country, New Jersey gets the least money back for every dollar we pay in federal taxes. Not always, sometimes it's Connecticut, but we're always down there at the bottom, getting screwed. So I guess by your logic, New Jersey is even more capable of seceding than California, right?

But wait - what would New Jersey be without New York and Philadelphia? I'll tell you what it wouldn't be - the state with the highest per capita income in the US (again, sometimes it's Connecticut, sometimes NJ). California depends on other states too. As I said previously in this thread, you depend on other states for electricity. About half of the electricity from the Hoover Dam goes to California. The Hoover Dam is not in California. As Amused said, you depend on other states for water.

Not to mention California would not have become as prosperous as it is today if it wasn't the US's gateway to the Pacific. Just like shipping helped New York become what it is. If California wasn't part of the US, it'd be a lot like Mexico today.

California would be nothing without the rest of us, and the smug attitude that you don't need us just makes everyone else dislike Californians more.

Nations don't exist in vacuums. Of course California would still need to purchase natural resources from other places. So what? We do already. The fact that it would be divided by national rather than state borders makes little difference; and this applies to commerce as well.

Yeah good luck with that. I understand Arizona could really use the water, and that electricity would really come in handy here what with the high energy costs and all. Yeah you're right though, it makes little difference if it's a national border rather than a state border - hey, how often do you buy stuff from Canada?

Also, I'm not claiming California should never have joined the U.S., just that we would be better off now on our own. Actually, if the U.S. forced the South to secede, I would be fine with that as an alternative. =)

By the way, you do realize I'm being somewhat sarcastic, right?

Yeah your post was just dripping with sarcasm. And then you defended it. But it was just sarcasm. Ok.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Nations don't exist in vacuums. Of course California would still need to purchase natural resources from other places. So what? We do already. The fact that it would be divided by national rather than state borders makes little difference; and this applies to commerce as well.

The problem with that is that if CA seceeded, the US wouldn't like it and there would be an embargo against you. No trading with us.

Portland or Seattle would become the new big pacific port, and CA would be forced to buy goods elsewhere for much higher prices (if they traded with you at all- you can bet there'd be political pressure from the US)

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: scott

Originally posted by: kranky
While Texas has no special "right to secede" - they can do it like any other state can - they do have one incredibly special right, the right to subdivide itself into four additional states (total of five) with each new state guaranteed admission to the US.

What are you talking about?

When Texas was annexed by the US in 1846, it was given the right to subdivide into no more than four additional states and each new state would become part of the US.

 

[mrkun]

Yeah, the US wouldn't trade with California, just like it doesn't have any trade with Canada or Mexico. I guess they can just go on without their largest source of technology, medical, and scientific generation as well as their largest source of agricultural production. Who cares about that stuff anyway?

About the sarcasm: I said "somewhat" sarcastic, not entirely.

Edit: I forgot to mention most of the aerospace industry too.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Texas v. White

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: mrkun

Nations don't exist in vacuums. Of course California would still need to purchase natural resources from other places. So what? We do already. The fact that it would be divided by national rather than state borders makes little difference; and this applies to commerce as well.

The problem with that is that if CA seceeded, the US wouldn't like it and there would be an embargo against you. No trading with us.

Portland or Seattle would become the new big pacific port, and CA would be forced to buy goods elsewhere for much higher prices (if they traded with you at all- you can bet there'd be political pressure from the US)

Just to be clear, I am a Californian and am not deluded enough to think it would be a good idea to attempt succession...

There would not be an embargo on CA in such an unlikely hypothetical situation as described. Either the federal gov would let the state go amicably, in which case there would be no need for an embargo, or they would have taken CA back by force, in which case there would be little left to place an embargo on.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: mugs

I live in New Jersey. Of all the states in the country, New Jersey gets the least money back for every dollar we pay in federal taxes. Not always, sometimes it's Connecticut, but we're always down there at the bottom, getting screwed. So I guess by your logic, New Jersey is even more capable of seceding than California, right?

But wait - what would New Jersey be without New York and Philadelphia? I'll tell you what it wouldn't be - the state with the highest per capita income in the US (again, sometimes it's Connecticut, sometimes NJ). California depends on other states too. As I said previously in this thread, you depend on other states for electricity. About half of the electricity from the Hoover Dam goes to California. The Hoover Dam is not in California. As Amused said, you depend on other states for water.

Not to mention California would not have become as prosperous as it is today if it wasn't the US's gateway to the Pacific. Just like shipping helped New York become what it is. If California wasn't part of the US, it'd be a lot like Mexico today.

California would be nothing without the rest of us, and the smug attitude that you don't need us just makes everyone else dislike Californians more.

Nations don't exist in vacuums. Of course California would still need to purchase natural resources from other places. So what? We do already. The fact that it would be divided by national rather than state borders makes little difference; and this applies to commerce as well.

Yeah good luck with that. I understand Arizona could really use the water, and that electricity would really come in handy here what with the high energy costs and all. Yeah you're right though, it makes little difference if it's a national border rather than a state border - hey, how often do you buy stuff from Canada?

Also, I'm not claiming California should never have joined the U.S., just that we would be better off now on our own. Actually, if the U.S. forced the South to secede, I would be fine with that as an alternative. =)

By the way, you do realize I'm being somewhat sarcastic, right?

Yeah your post was just dripping with sarcasm. And then you defended it. But it was just sarcasm. Ok.

no one's entirely serious about this, but it's amusing to entertain the idea of it.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

California would be hurting for water after they stop getting it from the Hoover Dam. Also, if they left the union, they wouldn't get to keep the military equipment, since it belongs to the USA.

but if they seceded, then they would be taking the government equipment with them wouldn't they? much like california would be stealing the national parks from the us nation?

 

[BoomerD]

Nah, the national parks, by virtue of their location, belong to the states in which they are located...Not like the Gov't can come in and reposess them...

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
My state tried that once, blue soldiers came...... stole everything of value, destroyed the infrastructure, and then burned the major cities to the ground.


I would suggest against leaving the union.

What I'd like to know is if that crazy little idea about the southernmost six counties of Mississippi breaking away and becoming a state is feasable.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
My state tried that once, blue soldiers came...... stole everything of value, destroyed the infrastructure, and then burned the major cities to the ground.


I would suggest against leaving the union.

What I'd like to know is if that crazy little idea about the southernmost six counties of Mississippi breaking away and becoming a state is feasable.

The Mississippi state legislature would have to approve of this first. Once they did the Congress would have to approve their admission to the Union as a separate state. That is basically how West Virginia was created.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Linflas
The Mississippi state legislature would have to approve of this first. Once they did the Congress would have to approve their admission to the Union as a separate state. That is basically how West Virginia was created.

The first part would never happen. All of the cool stuff is along the coast.

 

[Xyclone]

Ummm?

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Edit: I forgot to mention most of the aerospace industry too.

Yeah ok, I'm calling shens. Surely there's someone around here from Witchita, KS that can set you straight on that one.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: mrkun
Yeah, the US wouldn't trade with California, just like it doesn't have any trade with Canada or Mexico. I guess they can just go on without their largest source of technology, medical, and scientific generation as well as their largest source of agricultural production. Who cares about that stuff anyway?

About the sarcasm: I said "somewhat" sarcastic, not entirely.

Edit: I forgot to mention most of the aerospace industry too.

:laugh: You're delusional man. The way you tell it, California carries the weight of the entire country while the rest of us sit around drinking our own snot. :laugh:

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: mrkun
Yeah, the US wouldn't trade with California, just like it doesn't have any trade with Canada or Mexico. I guess they can just go on without their largest source of technology, medical, and scientific generation as well as their largest source of agricultural production. Who cares about that stuff anyway?

About the sarcasm: I said "somewhat" sarcastic, not entirely.

Edit: I forgot to mention most of the aerospace industry too.

:laugh: You're delusional man. The way you tell it, California carries the weight of the entire country while the rest of us sit around drinking our own snot. :laugh:

California, New England, Texas, and the rust belt carry the the country. The rest are sucking the big tit.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: mugs

:laugh: You're delusional man. The way you tell it, California carries the weight of the entire country while the rest of us sit around drinking our own snot. :laugh:

California, New England, Texas, and the rust belt carry the the country. The rest are sucking the big tit.

See, not everyone is sitting around drinking their own snot.

 

[AtlantaBob]

Originally posted by: Amused
It was tried once. Lots of people died.

QTF. And that was in a time when they might have had a chance. Given modern day military realities, not to mention the cultural entanglements between states, and the money in federal aid that the states would be giving up...

the answer to your question is: under no possible circumstances.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

California would be hurting for water after they stop getting it from the Hoover Dam. Also, if they left the union, they wouldn't get to keep the military equipment, since it belongs to the USA.

but if they seceded, then they would be taking the government equipment with them wouldn't they? much like california would be stealing the national parks from the us nation?

The US would take the equipment by force. They can't take a national park.

 

[thehstrybean]

A city not far from here (Trenton, GA) was part of the CSA up until the 1945, I believe...The flag still has the Stars & Bars (the old one did, the new one doesn't even though the old one is still flown)...

"In 1860, Dade County elected to secede from the Union when it seemed s though the state would not. In fact, Dade did not officially rejoin the Union until 1945, more than a hundred years after the end of the Civil War."

http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/south/nero.html

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: thehstrybean
A city not far from here (Trenton, GA) was part of the CSA up until the 1945, I believe...The flag still has the Stars & Bars (the old one did, the new one doesn't even though the old one is still flown)...

"In 1860, Dade County elected to secede from the Union when it seemed s though the state would not. In fact, Dade did not officially rejoin the Union until 1945, more than a hundred years after the end of the Civil War."

http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/south/nero.html

Since when is 1945 more than a hundred years after the Civil War ended?

 

[natto fire]

Originally posted by: Amused
It was tried once. Lots of people died.

Thread should have really ended there.

However, it would be nice if a state could. Then these pointless arguments over who's state is better might be slightly more productive.

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500...
On a side note, our state is bigger and better than yours .

Define bigger, and better. Geographically, not even close. Better is an opinion, therefore not very objective data.