The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 20, 2020 11:28:10 GMT
Trump has just exacerbated trends that have been visible since the 1980s if not earlier.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,730
|
Post by mboy on Apr 20, 2020 12:01:55 GMT
Ain't gonna happen. Silly separatist agitators are active the world over, but there is no equivalent of the EU to help tempt US states away from the Union. Secession in the USA is forever (rightly) tainted by the Civil War and the slaving Confederacy. The idea that California would want to inevitably associate itself with secession and the "bad guys" in the civil war is bonkers.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 22, 2020 1:17:08 GMT
Regional polarisation could eventually be enough. It's already debilitating institutions, and if these institutions were to be sufficiently degraded, they would eventually be deemed so illegitimate as to cause the breakdown of the rule of law (true for any country). A sufficient degree of election fraud, or the perception of such, might be enough in combination with a conviction that large parts of the incumbent government did not have a given region's interests at heart.
Assuming that this tipping point for the rule of law was reached, it would probably entail unrest and some degree of violence, especially if there was a call to exercise 2nd amendment rights. Secession of one part from another (assuming mutual animosity) would be one plausible way to end such a conflict swiftly and without much bloodshed. Cautious politicians not particularly enamoured with the concept of the polarised US could opt for this - the carnage of the civil war could actually tilt some in favour of this option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Apr 22, 2020 7:29:30 GMT
The fact California could easily survive as an independent country may actually be the reason why it doesn't happen.
It's relatively easy to give more power to the states
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 18:35:34 GMT
It is unconstitutional to secede from the Union, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 26, 2020 14:24:58 GMT
The fact California could easily survive as an independent country may actually be the reason why it doesn't happen. It's relatively easy to give more power to the statesThis wouldn't be enough to trigger a secession on its own, but moves like it - i.e. ones that are part of a power struggle that features blatant disregard for the institutions of the union and, on at least one side, a pride of place for the interests of the richest - could slowly erode its stability. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,730
|
Post by mboy on Apr 26, 2020 15:30:39 GMT
It is unconstitutional to secede from the Union, isn't it? Unilateral secession is. What kind of multi-lateral agreement might be legal is less clear. Supreme Court ruling Texas v White is relevant: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Apr 26, 2020 16:26:49 GMT
It is unconstitutional to secede from the Union, isn't it? Was the Second Continental Congress adopting the Declaration of Independence universally regarded as constitutional at the time? |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Apr 26, 2020 16:49:58 GMT
Are the metropolitan, coastal, liberal cities on a constant diverging path form fly over red state America, or is it transient sustained only by the personality of President Trump? It's not a new pattern. It's the same pattern that gave the Federalists a shrinking base over the 1796-1820 Presidential elections, which eventually saw the party system completely fall apart before the opposition finally reinvented itself as the Whigs by 1836 (and the early Whig programs – especially the magnificent jingoism of the 1840 campaign – should be particularly instructive for the Democratic Party in trying to escape the metropolitan elite problem). With the big caveat of Italian and Irish minorities having been heavily Democratic at the time, it was also the pattern in which Republicans would lose elections they thought they were winning at particular moments in the 20th century, starting with 1916, but very clearly appearing again in 1948 and 1960 – and we know what lessons Richard Nixon learnt there. Drawing Jesusland maps and raging against the latest idiot in the White House may be very funny, but it much more resembles Federalists being certain that they were right as they faded into insignificance than Richard Nixon turning things around for the GOP within the length of a political career. |
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on May 5, 2020 17:56:14 GMT
It is unconstitutional to secede from the Union, isn't it? Was the Second Continental Congress adopting the Declaration of Independence universally regarded as constitutional at the time? The Congress was a meeting of delegates from each of the colonial legislatures to discuss common interests so in those terms, it was legitimate as it was a talking shop with no legal or political authority of its own. Whether it was constitutional for the Congress to adopt the Declaration of Independence depends on whether you were the King or British Government who thought those colonials should do as they were told, an American who thought this was all an argument over the right to decide domestic taxation policy, or a radical proposing independence. The British response turned a lot of the second group into the third. The Revolutions podcast (series 2) on the American Revolution is well worth a listen for a quality narrative and commentary. If you'd like some alternative history fiction, then Harry Turtledove has two offerings for you on this subject. There is the Disunited States of America for what would happen if the 1789 constitution was never adopted and the whole Union project unravelled shortly afterwards into several dozen independent republics. And then there is How Few Remain which supposes one key event in the Civil War happened differently and the Confederacy won, which follows through into the Great War trilogy, the American Empire trilogy; and Settling Accounts series all of which imagine a different 20th century with a lot of the big events unfolding in the Americas rather than or as well as in Europe. Some good lockdown reading if you need it! |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589 
|
Post by cibwr on May 7, 2020 12:59:38 GMT
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589
|
Post by cibwr on May 7, 2020 13:01:46 GMT
In the Decades of Darkness, the point of departure is the early death of President Thomas Jefferson while still in office in 1809. At this time in our history, the New England states were seething over the Embargo Act, a restriction on commerce which had been intended to stop American interests from being violated by Britain and France. The Embargo Act, however, mostly had the effect of bankrupting New England merchants. In our history (called our timeline or OTL for short), Jefferson finally conceded the repeal of the Embargo Act, which took the edge off the New England secessionist movement. While it would reappear later during the War of 1812, it never really recovered its momentum.
But in this alternate history, Jefferson dies and his successors keep up the Embargo Act for a while longer. This leads to the secession of New England, supported by the United Kingdom, and to a civil war where New England gains its independence. There is now a rump-United States where the slaveholding states hold the power, and a small but wealthy and heavily industrialised Republic of New England which follows its own path of development. The Decades of Darkness traces the history of these two nations, and the rest of the world, as it takes a very different path to the events of our history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on May 7, 2020 14:45:47 GMT
Just been reading The People's Flag: The Union of Britain and the Kaiserreich Paperback by Tom Black; its an ok alternative reality where WW1 ends later; Britain becomes a Socialist state in it. It uses known figures in different roles and mainly concentrates on the Britain. In it the USA disintegrates into civil war with a Syndicalist Socialist north; a dictatorial south; a seperate west and Canada invades New England.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Jun 2, 2020 21:24:18 GMT
Just been reading The People's Flag: The Union of Britain and the Kaiserreich Paperback by Tom Black; its an ok alternative reality where WW1 ends later; Britain becomes a Socialist state in it. It uses known figures in different roles and mainly concentrates on the Britain. In it the USA disintegrates into civil war with a Syndicalist Socialist north; a dictatorial south; a seperate west and Canada invades New England. They brought out a book based on a HOI mod? Why not!  |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jun 2, 2020 21:54:32 GMT
Just been reading The People's Flag: The Union of Britain and the Kaiserreich Paperback by Tom Black; its an ok alternative reality where WW1 ends later; Britain becomes a Socialist state in it. It uses known figures in different roles and mainly concentrates on the Britain. In it the USA disintegrates into civil war with a Syndicalist Socialist north; a dictatorial south; a seperate west and Canada invades New England. They brought out a book based on a HOI mod? Why not! When my lad leaves home in a year or so I will no longer be able to understand this sort of post. BTW I had the idea for a novel set in a post WW1 Britain where we lose the submarine war and the German March 1918 offensive breaks through leading to revolution and civil war. The idea was to fill the book with historical and fictional figures of the 1920s - T E Lawrence, Bertie Wooster, Hercule Poirot, Robert Graves, Rose Macaulay, Virginia Woolf, assorted Waugh characters - and work out whether they'd be Reds or Whites, and see what happened. Too idle to write it though. |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,815
|
Post by iang on Jun 4, 2020 11:42:44 GMT
By no means an expert on the USA either historically or now, but Texas and some other southern states were part of Mexico until the 1840s. How far could growing Hispanic presence in some of those states make secession / making a "Greater Mexico" seem attractive?
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 4, 2020 11:47:51 GMT
By no means an expert on the USA either historically or now, but Texas and some other southern states were part of Mexico until the 1840s. How far could growing Hispanic presence in some of those states make secession / making a "Greater Mexico" seem attractive?
To those in the States, it will not be attractive at any time in the near or even medium term future for economic and security reasons.
|
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,672
|
Post by pl on Jun 4, 2020 11:56:21 GMT
By no means an expert on the USA either historically or now, but Texas and some other southern states were part of Mexico until the 1840s. How far could growing Hispanic presence in some of those states make secession / making a "Greater Mexico" seem attractive? To those in the States, it will not be attractive at any time in the near or even medium term future for economic and security reasons.
And while all Mexicans are Hispanics, not all Hispanics are Mexicans. And only 50% of fourth generation immigrants consider themselves Hispanic... www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/11/who-is-hispanic/ |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,913
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 4, 2020 12:07:54 GMT
By no means an expert on the USA either historically or now, but Texas and some other southern states were part of Mexico until the 1840s. How far could growing Hispanic presence in some of those states make secession / making a "Greater Mexico" seem attractive? They go through all that pain and disruption to get to the states and out of drug-ridden, chaotic, crime-ridden, grossly corrupt Mexico ... ......... And their first thought as free US citizens is to be 'Let's rejoin Mexico'? In the realm of really daft speculations that is a real contender for a prize! |
|
|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Jun 4, 2020 12:44:33 GMT
Any time the idea of the US breaking up is mooted, I always recall this meme from around the time of the Iraq War.
Dear Red States:
We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.
In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all of the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.
To sum up briefly:
You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood.
We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.
We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.
Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Stanford, Cal Tech, MIT, and University of California.
With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties.
By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.
Peace out,
California
|
|
