Calexit: Could it Happen?

[Thermodolia]

I say good riddance
Let them pay for there welfare state themselves
But if they did they would want to come back in to the United States with in a month .

California pays more into the federal government than it receives.

[Eol Sha]

Absolutely not. The union must remain united.

[USS Monitor]

If the majority of Californians want independence, then they should be allowed to have it. If they want to stay in the Union, they should be allowed to stay.

The majority of the South wanted independence, and held votes to that effect. You argued they were traitors literally just a few days ago. Doesn't this stance seem hypocritical of you?

The decision was made by state legislatures, not popular vote, and the rebels fired the first shots of the Civil War. They also seized federal property all over the South instead of allowing the Union troops adequate time to evacuate and remove their property. And I'm pretty confident I didn't use the word "traitor" as an insult, since disloyalty to the Union isn't the part of their cause that I have a problem with.

If the South wants to leave the Union peacefully and based on popular vote, I support their right to do so any time. I support the right to secede within limited parameters, but the Confederates went outside those parameters pretty badly. Part of my hostility toward the CSA is that they gave secessionism a bad name.

[Cetacea]

Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink

Yes it should but it would need to workout its water issues first

[Inve]

Economically CA is the same size as Russia, so yes they would be recognized. However, the U.S. will fall before this ever happens.

[Frenline Delpha]

If the majority of Californians want independence, then they should be allowed to have it. If they want to stay in the Union, they should be allowed to stay.

Fuck no. I don't give a shit wether any state wants to leave the Union or not. The Union was and always will be eternal. Plus, the comparison to Brexit is laughable at best.

[Community Values]

No, we need less countries, not more. Geography quizzes have been getting too hard after 1945.

[Cetacea]

. The Union was and always will be eternal..

167 years isn't eternal

[Frenline Delpha]

. The Union was and always will be eternal..

167 years isn't eternal

My "was" starts from the time it began to the time it comes to an end (the entire country, that is). We fought a war on this principle. And I damn sure don't want another. But, I would not oppose it if any states tried that shit again.

[Oil exporting People]

The decision was made by state legislatures, not popular vote,

False, and clearly you don't know your Civil War history:

On January 2, 1861, a miserably rainy day, Georgia voters went to the polls and selected delegates to a convention that would decide the state's response to Lincoln's election. In many counties the candidates divided along two divergent views. Immediate secessionists advocated leaving the Union without further consideration. Cooperationists, however, tended to be more conciliatory. Their opinions ranged from maintaining a devout Unionism, to desiring a scheme in which the South acted in unison, to advocating a delay of the act of secession.

and the rebels fired the first shots of the Civil War. They also seized federal property all over the South instead of allowing the Union troops adequate time to evacuate and remove their property.

South Carolina left the Union in December, Fort Sumter didn't happen until April. That's roughly six months of time to render a pull out, and yet they were attempting to maintain their holdings since they were beginning supply runs.

And I'm pretty confident I didn't use the word "traitor" as an insult, since disloyalty to the Union isn't the part of their cause that I have a problem with.

You advocated they be subject to the legal penalties within such, so whether or not you meant it is as an insult is irrelevant.

[USS Monitor]

167 years isn't eternal

My "was" starts from the time it began to the time it comes to an end (the entire country, that is). We fought a war on this principle. And I damn sure don't want another. But, I would not oppose it if any states tried that shit again.

That war was just a misunderstanding. I warned the Confederacy for trolling, but they took it badly.

[Thermodolia]

. The Union was and always will be eternal..

167 years isn't eternal

More like 240. But it will continue until the end of time

[Dytarma]

Well, they can, but they need a majority vote from the other states, which is highly unlikely. But honestly, I would think that it should stay in the Union.

[USS Monitor]

The decision was made by state legislatures, not popular vote,

False, and clearly you don't know your Civil War history:

On January 2, 1861, a miserably rainy day, Georgia voters went to the polls and selected delegates to a convention that would decide the state's response to Lincoln's election. In many counties the candidates divided along two divergent views. Immediate secessionists advocated leaving the Union without further consideration. Cooperationists, however, tended to be more conciliatory. Their opinions ranged from maintaining a devout Unionism, to desiring a scheme in which the South acted in unison, to advocating a delay of the act of secession.

That's one state out of 11.

and the rebels fired the first shots of the Civil War. They also seized federal property all over the South instead of allowing the Union troops adequate time to evacuate and remove their property.

South Carolina left the Union in December, Fort Sumter didn't happen until April. That's roughly six months of time to render a pull out, and yet they were attempting to maintain their holdings since they were beginning supply runs.

That was not the first time the Confederates seized federal property.

Supply runs show that the Union had not yet recognized South Carolina's independence, but they're not equivalent to opening fire, and they don't preclude negotiating toward a peaceful separation.

And I'm pretty confident I didn't use the word "traitor" as an insult, since disloyalty to the Union isn't the part of their cause that I have a problem with.

You advocated they be subject to the legal penalties within such, so whether or not you meant it is as an insult is irrelevant.

I think it's unlikely that I used the word "traitor" in any context, but was too lazy to double-check. You've probably confused my posts with someone else who was actually Unionist, as opposed to just anti-Confederate.

I have a problem with the Confederates using violence, not with them wanting independence -- but I really have a problem with their use of violence. Also, most of the argument you and I had recently was about the logical implications of refusing to recognize Confederate authority, not about what I personally think should have happened. I am OK with the Union recognizing Confederate authority to the extent that it was convenient to justify not executing a million people.

If the South wants to leave the Union peacefully and based on popular vote, I support their right to do so any time. I support the right to secede within limited parameters, but the Confederates went outside those parameters pretty badly. Part of my hostility toward the CSA is that they gave secessionism a bad name.

As I noted above, most of this is hogwash. It's very clear to me you're being hypocritical on this issue out of purely partisan leanings.

More like you've completely misunderstood what my objection to the Confederacy is.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

No. The states are part of the United States of America and that is it. If they wish to secede they will get a firm no.

[Rio Cana]

As stated in the U.S. constitution, a state is legally unable to leave the union in order to preserve the union. While arguments can be made with the first 13 states of the union, all of the other U.S. states and other possesions are unable to leave the union.

Because of this, the other way to leave the U.S. is to engage in a violent revolution. This can be seen as wildly difficult, although not as difficult as Texas or a second confederacy, due to the U.S. being the strongest military power in the world as well as in all of history. However, with California holding 1 out of 10 citizens of the U.S. as well as multiple nuclear missiles, an argument can be made that any conflict between the United States and a rebelious California would be a violent and bloody one.

US territories can go there own way. They belong to the US but are not part of the US.

[Dytarma]

No. The states are part of the United States of America and that is it. If they wish to secede they will get a firm no.

Not necessarily. While it is hard to do so, if they get a state majority vote, they can gain independence.

[Frenline Delpha]

As stated in the U.S. constitution, a state is legally unable to leave the union in order to preserve the union. While arguments can be made with the first 13 states of the union, all of the other U.S. states and other possesions are unable to leave the union.

Because of this, the other way to leave the U.S. is to engage in a violent revolution. This can be seen as wildly difficult, although not as difficult as Texas or a second confederacy, due to the U.S. being the strongest military power in the world as well as in all of history. However, with California holding 1 out of 10 citizens of the U.S. as well as multiple nuclear missiles, an argument can be made that any conflict between the United States and a rebelious California would be a violent and bloody one.

US territories can go there own way. They belong to the US but are not part of the US.

This I agree with.

[Oil exporting People]

That's one state out of 11.

Virginia, Texas, Alabama, and Louisiana. I'm currently in the process of looking at Tennessee and South Carolina, and if you so wish I will look for the others. So far, however, it is quite clear all delegations were elected by popular vote. Furthermore, even if we ignore the above, your original contention that the secession was done soley by State Governments isn't even true, since all of these links show they were special conventions.

Time to take that L, bud.

That was not the first time the Confederates seized federal property.

What specifically are you referring to? The events in Texas, where Federal officials turned over munitions and such?

Supply runs show that the Union had not yet recognized South Carolina's independence, but they're not equivalent to opening fire, and they don't preclude negotiating toward a peaceful separation.

With the secession of South Carolina and the passage of nearly half a year, it was quite clear they were occupying the sovereign territory (Using your parameters) of another nation. Every nation is obligated to defend its soil, after all.

I think it's unlikely that I used the word "traitor" in any context, but was too lazy to double-check. You've probably confused my posts with someone else who was actually Unionist, as opposed to just anti-Confederate.

Your last post (And last in the thread, incidentally) advocated Lee should've been executed for murder. Granted, this was in response me to my argument concerning the logical failings of the Federal legal position on the subject, so the context is a bit different. Given that, you're probably correct on this point and likewise, I don't really have the desire to argue over semantics.

[Adytus]

Leaving the Union won't fix what's broken.

[Oil exporting People]

Leaving the Union won't fix what's broken.

Nothing can fix the San Andreas

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Leaving the Union won't fix what's broken.

Nothing can fix the San Andreas

San Andreas isn't broken. It is a perfectly functional game.

[The Great Devourer of All]

No. Hell no.

Trump will likely turn out to be the worst president America has had since before the turn of the 20th century, but that in no way warrants seceding from the Union. Only when he defies the Constitution and begins to take away the rights of people across America will it be acceptable for states to declare independence. Until then, an independent California would only make matters worse by encouraging states like Texas and Georgia to seriously think about pulling out the next time the Democrats take power. With either case, the situation would be extremely bad, as a sizable portion of our nuclear arsenal would immediately be in the hands of a foreign nation.

We can not under any circumstances allow the nation to become fractured over the next four years, because we will very quickly begin to slide down the most dangerous slippery slope in our history. The economic and military prowess of a hypothetical ex-state should be entirely irrelevant in arguments like these.

[Oil exporting People]

San Andreas isn't broken. It is a perfectly functional game.

Damn it, we can't even have our Geology jokes anymore without somebody bringing in our GTA jokes.

AND THE ROCK (More Geology jokes) DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT.

[Gauthier]

If the majority of Californians want independence, then they should be allowed to have it. If they want to stay in the Union, they should be allowed to stay.

The majority of the South wanted independence, and held votes to that effect. You argued they were traitors literally just a few days ago. Doesn't this stance seem hypocritical of you?

Let me know when California opens fire on Camp Pendleton or some other military base.