New California's Secession From (Old) California

[The Realist Polities]

Because it's somehow an act of aggression on the Union's part when Confederate soldiers walk up and try to capture their neat fort.

Wasn't it in Southern territory?

[Greater Kossackia]

First off, treason has a very specific meaning and trying to peacefully secede from a country does not meet that metric. Secondly, the New California people are only doing it to redraw the political landscape to help conservatives. Their arguments are sourced in conspiracy theory websites (seriously, one of their top guys is best known for his Agenda 21 Radio where he spouts out some insane babble) and conservative think tanks. Thirdly, California's ethnic demographics have been shifting gradually and for a long time. The state hasn't done anything to make this happen by design, it just works out that way. Arizona, New Mexico and Texas all have the exact same trends, as does the US over all. Things aren't being done to these people, nor are they being ignored by the state government and they are not being abused. Trying to say they are is either serious delusion or out right lies.

1. By that definition, the Southern secession was also not treasonous. The war of secession was imposed on the South, it wasn't something that they sought.

2. It would help conservatives for sure but a) I wouldn't say that's the only reason and b) Cali conservatives are not exactly the most fundamentalist in the US...
Then, every innovative movement will have its fair share of nutcases. The exceptions do not impress me. The grievances which are raised have a long history and are reasonable. No need to point to the extremists in the movement.
BTW, the likes of Antifa or BLM would not be presented as proof of the Left's current extremist drive if it weren't for the sympathy with which they're treated by mainstream orgs and politicians.

3. You may know more about this than I do. But, I've observed the same tendency towards revolutionary changes occur elsewhere in the world and while it may not be a 'masterplan', it is certainly a trend incentivised by the political Left.

1. Assuredly, the attempt to secede was not in and of itself treason. What was treason was when they attempted to make it happen by force of arms. Firing on Fort Sumter, the act that initiated the war, was treason, as was the raising of armies to wage war on the US by the illegal Confederate government.

2. Cali conservatives are pretty damn bad in a lot of places. Since they don't get much experience actually governing (thank whatever deity), they've gotten really good at advancing what little of their agenda they have by lying through their teeth about it (see Prop 8 and the campaign around that). Cali conservatives don't like that they are in the political minority and want to redraw the map for partisan purposes. That's it.

3. Anything is revolutionary when it is a change to the status quo. There are revolutionary right wing causes (most of which I have nothing for disdain for), but the fact remains that systems like those preferred by the right tend to have be more like those that had been around historically than those preferred by the left which is why it could be considered 'revolutionary'. That said, none of those have to do with attempting force demographic changes or any of the other nonsense you cited in your original post. Are some of the policies inefficient or misguided? Probably. They are human after all, and mistakes will be made, but the over all guiding star of California left wingers has been compassion. I can't say the same for these guys.

[Greater Kossackia]

Because it's somehow an act of aggression on the Union's part when Confederate soldiers walk up and try to capture their neat fort.

Wasn't it in Southern territory?

Sure. Southern portions of the United States. As Congress never consented to the secession, it had no legal standing at that point. Which means firing on it was an act of treason as defined in the United States Constitution.

[Valrifell]

Because it's somehow an act of aggression on the Union's part when Confederate soldiers walk up and try to capture their neat fort.

Wasn't it in Southern territory?

Fort Sumter was, by all means, technically US Federal clay, since nobody surrendered it. Most of the South had little interest resolving the ordeal peacefully, they literally cheered when they starting shelling Sumter.

Always worth remembering the first shots fired where Confederate, not Union.

But I digress.

[Reploid Productions]

Cali conservatives are not exactly the most fundamentalist in the US...

Trust me, you go through places like Bakersfield, you will find California conservatives that could give the reddest of the redbeck Bible Belt crowd a run for their money. A run up I-5 through the Central Valley sees plenty of "PRAISE JESUS!" and pro-Trump/GOP/etc signage. (Usually on the same farms that won't switch to more efficient drip irrigation systems who also have signs bitching about the "Congress created Dust Bowl" because they aren't getting allotted quite as much water as they used to because of 1) the drought conditions, and 2) the environmental concerns of pulling too much water from the Owens/Mono Lake watershed.)

[Oil exporting People]

Because it's somehow an act of aggression on the Union's part when Confederate soldiers walk up and try to capture their neat fort.

No, because said fort was unoccupied at the time of secession and by agreement with South Carolina, Washington had agreed not to do so after secession in order to prevent incidents.......and then promptly proceeded to do it anyway.

[Oil exporting People]

Did you read the OP? This isn't about leaving the USA. It's a group of people in California wanting to split out of the state to become another state within the USA.

The title is extremely vaguely, especially given the existence of the Calexit movement, which actually does fit the bill of "California Secession".

[Vassenor]

Because it's somehow an act of aggression on the Union's part when Confederate soldiers walk up and try to capture their neat fort.

No, because said fort was unoccupied at the time of secession and by agreement with South Carolina, Washington had agreed not to do so after secession in order to prevent incidents.......and then promptly proceeded to do it anyway.

[citation needed]

[Greater Kossackia]

Because it's somehow an act of aggression on the Union's part when Confederate soldiers walk up and try to capture their neat fort.

No, because said fort was unoccupied at the time of secession and by agreement with South Carolina, Washington had agreed not to do so after secession in order to prevent incidents.......and then promptly proceeded to do it anyway.

That's distinctly untrue. It was under construction by Union forces at the time of the secession, and the demands for it to be surrendered were repeatedly rebuffed as there was no reason for the US to vacate a fort within its own territories.

[Oil exporting People]

That's distinctly untrue. It was under construction by Union forces at the time of the secession, and the demands for it to be surrendered were repeatedly rebuffed as there was no reason for the US to vacate a fort within its own territories.

No, the land the fort was built on was granted in the 1820s and it never really was fully completed; at the time of secession it was unoccupied, and this is not a matter of opinion but a historical fact. Furthermore, as I already stated, Washington had agreed to leave it unoccupied by agreement with the new South Carolinian state on the basis of avoiding unfortunate accidents, as was being done throughout the South with the peaceful turnover of fortifications and military stockpiles to the now independent governments. Washington then violated this agreement, and also caused the Star of the West incident.

[Vassenor]

That's distinctly untrue. It was under construction by Union forces at the time of the secession, and the demands for it to be surrendered were repeatedly rebuffed as there was no reason for the US to vacate a fort within its own territories.

No, the land the fort was built on was granted in the 1820s and it never really was fully completed; at the time of secession it was unoccupied, and this is not a matter of opinion but a historical fact. Furthermore, as I already stated, Washington had agreed to leave it unoccupied by agreement with the new South Carolinian state on the basis of avoiding unfortunate accidents, as was being done throughout the South with the peaceful turnover of fortifications and military stockpiles to the now independent governments. Washington then violated this agreement, and also caused the Star of the West incident.

Let's see primary sources for this information then if it's historical fact.

[Valrifell]

That's distinctly untrue. It was under construction by Union forces at the time of the secession, and the demands for it to be surrendered were repeatedly rebuffed as there was no reason for the US to vacate a fort within its own territories.

No, the land the fort was built on was granted in the 1820s and it never really was fully completed; at the time of secession it was unoccupied, and this is not a matter of opinion but a historical fact. Furthermore, as I already stated, Washington had agreed to leave it unoccupied by agreement with the new South Carolinian state on the basis of avoiding unfortunate accidents, as was being done throughout the South with the peaceful turnover of fortifications and military stockpiles to the now independent governments. Washington then violated this agreement, and also caused the Star of the West incident.

Even though your history of the Civil War is heavily skewed as I'd expect of a self-proclaimed "Southern Nationalist," and while I hate to be "that guy" I think the Civil War talk should be for another thread.

[Longweather]

Depending on the maps I've seen, I'd be okay with this so long as old California gets Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties. I would hate for various segments of the Bay Area to be split between states if only because the entire place is a highly connected metropolitan area and inter-state customs would be painful. Also, borders would be hideous.

[Reploid Productions]

Um, guys? Civil war ain't the thread topic, could we maybe move that to its own thread and keep this one on the latest flavor of "Let's split California, because surely the 15-billionth time is the charm and we'll totally pull it off this time!" subject?

[Oil exporting People]

Even though your history of the Civil War is heavily skewed as I'd expect of a self-proclaimed "Southern Nationalist," and while I hate to be "that guy" I think the Civil War talk should be for another thread.

Given this thread has a topic of secession in the American context, I find it relevant since that said history will inevitably come up when discussing it in the modern context. With that said, by all means show me where I stated anything wrong in that paragraph because there isn't.

Edit: Nevermind.

[The Corparation]

Why do we keep giving this nutjobs attention? Nobody besides the people that put these proposals out supports them.Its literally just a couple of butthurt conservatives who want to pay less taxes and have their own pet GOP senator. The only movement with any actual backing behind it are the Jefferson people up north and half of their "state" is currently part of Oregon.

Also am I the only one who noticed that their map shows Los Angles as being nearly 50 miles west of where it should be? They didn't even put it in the right county. It looks like they just relabeled Ventura as LA. It's a really lazy map too. It looks like they just took an old county voting map, used the ms paint bucket tool to turn the red counties yellow and then called the result a state. And also moved LA to make it less obvious that they split up both of the states two largest metropolitan areas.

[San Lumen]

Why do we keep giving this nutjobs attention? Nobody besides the people that put these proposals out supports them.Its literally just a couple of butthurt conservatives who want to pay less taxes and have their own pet GOP senator. The only movement with any actual backing behind it are the Jefferson people up north and half of their "state" is currently part of Oregon.

Also am I the only one who noticed that their map shows Los Angles as being nearly 50 miles west of where it should be? They didn't even put it in the right county. It looks like they just relabeled Ventura as LA. It's a really lazy map too. It looks like they just took an old county voting map, used the ms paint bucket tool to turn the red counties yellow and then called the result a state. And also moved LA to make it less obvious that they split up both of the states two largest metropolitan areas.

well maybe its a few more than just them but it doesn't have majority support and is unlikely to have it anytime soon.

The State of Jefferson wont happen either.

[The Parkus Empire]

I would not mind a split from Northern California, but a split from the Feds is not acceptable.

[Ethel mermania]

No, because said fort was unoccupied at the time of secession and by agreement with South Carolina, Washington had agreed not to do so after secession in order to prevent incidents.......and then promptly proceeded to do it anyway.

[citation needed]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

[Shofercia]

Sauces:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-california-declares-independence-from-rest-of-state/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/01/16/new-california-declares-independence-california-bid-become-51st-state/1036681001/

So another talk about secession but this time instead of leaving the US the people want to leave a state. The rural counties of California want to leave the State and form the state of New California this would leave the Coastal Urban counties that house cities such as San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego to be what is left of the state of California.

My thoughts in regards to the statehood aspect is if they want it let them do it at least it wouldn't be like Puerto Rico, or D.C. vying for statehood. Plus it would give people better options when moving to the West coast if these people can show they can run effectively and efficiently. So what do you people think? Especially those who were born or lived or still live in California

Is there any polling available? Because something tells me that this idea isn't support by more than a fourth of the population living in the areas that want to secede. It's the same madness that we experienced when Trump was elected, and the Liberals wanted to secede. I'm for secession, if the people support it, but I've yet to seen anything that would show that it has popular support in California.

[Shofercia]

Oh this again?

Not going to worry about it.

the state government will never approve it.

Who cares about the State Government, when even the locals won't support it? I've yet to see a single populous county with anything that even remotely approaches 50% support for independence.

Much like Texas secessionists, the California secessionists, whether the two-state or six-state or make-a-new-country flavors remain a tiny minority of the state's population. It is extremely unlikely that any of them will gain anywhere close to a significant voting majority needed to make the notions the least bit plausible.

Or any voting majority for that matter.

State secession is silly, Federal secession is treason. That's about the extent of my views on the matter. If it's for political reasons, then tell the fools that gerrymandering is bad enough when states do it; we don't need to do it to states.

California has the mechanism to have de facto secession, just devolve most powers to the counties. Sure, all of the new states/counties would still only get two senators combined senators, but it's not like the US Senate did much useful stuff for California, as we're a donor state.

Id say the real problem is representation at the state level. As I said in another post, many of the rural counties don't feel like they have a voice in Sacramento. Give them that, and there'll be no Reason for secession.

They can restructure the Government to give them said support. We are a Proposition State.

Which remains a completely moot point because even in rural counties, these secession-flavor types do not represent anything close to a majority of the population in the "aggrieved" areas. This isn't some sweeping tide rising up to wash over California politics, it's just the latest iteration of the same tiny noisy minority that likes to stick its head up and beat it on this particular brick wall every couple of years and generally fails to get anywhere close to enough signatures to put the latest version of the idea onto an actual ballot.

There is an essence of principle that makes the point relevant regardless.

The point is certainly relevant, but it's inapplicable to California.

[Republica de Los Grandes]

It is the UNITED States of America, just FYI. If we allowed every state that wanted to leave, then we'd no longer be united. We'd be separated isolated countries. We all know what happened during the civil war. The bloodiest war in American history was not pretty.

Also if California does leave the USA and becomes communist... I say we just wait. No need to rush the typical ending of a communist-led country. Just open up a can of soda and sit right next to the border.

[Valrifell]

It is the UNITED States of America, just FYI. If we allowed every state that wanted to leave, then we'd no longer be united. We'd be separated isolated countries. We all know what happened during the civil war. The bloodiest war in American history was not pretty.

Also if California does leave the USA and becomes communist... I say we just wait. No need to rush the typical ending of a communist-led country. Just open up a can of soda and sit right next to the border.

Wrong succession.

This thread has proven to be an interesting metric at how many users read the OP, at least.

[Shofercia]

Hmmm ... suppose everyone in the section that wishes to secede stops bathing and groups of them stand on hills upwind of the other part? Or just visit the state capitol in large groups?

Truely the peasants are revolting.

Let them go. No government should exist over a government capable of handling the full duties of a sovereign government.

the state government based in Sacramento is sovereign over the state. These counties have a voice in government they just dont get special treatment which is what they want and what your want for your rural county.

Actually, the people are sovereign over the Sac. It's in Californian's State Constitution.

Uh, isn't this just them wanting to split from California and be admitted as their own state.

Yep. Ever since the Six State "Solution" and the election of Trump, this has been a growing fad in California. I think that LA County should secede from Hollywood

From what I know it's illegal for states to secede from the union but not from the state so if they want to do it sure go ahead and if they fail they fail and want to come back in and the coast can laugh and them and if they prospere they can laugh at the coast.

Actually it would be illegal, because each state is guaranteed 2 Senators. Bit hard to get those if the Senate says "noooooo!" I'm not saying that I support said law.

They can get in line behind the State of Jefferson people or just talk to the people in Rough & Ready and ask how it turned out for them. They put on a play about it every year.

That's phenomenal trolling. We should do that in Cali. Secede in March of 2019, and rejoin in August of 2019. No elections should have occurred during said time period, except for the odd year June Elections that few care about. Continue to trade with the Bombing Republic of the United States. Address them as such in every communique. For extra lulz, elect Brown as King, or, better yet, Queen.

[The Corparation]

It is the UNITED States of America, just FYI. If we allowed every state that wanted to leave, then we'd no longer be united. We'd be separated isolated countries. We all know what happened during the civil war. The bloodiest war in American history was not pretty.

Also if California does leave the USA and becomes communist... I say we just wait. No need to rush the typical ending of a communist-led country. Just open up a can of soda and sit right next to the border.

Wrong succession.

This thread has proven to be an interesting metric at how many users read the OP, at least.

I'm more confused as to why they think that California seceding would turn the state into a communist led country.