What are your thoughts on secession?

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,262
here
#31
The logic that suggests Mexico would invade an independent California suggests that the United States of America would invade Canada. The latter isn't happening, so what makes you think the former would happen? Besides, even were Mexico to commit enough of its army to overcome the California National Guard and subdue its people (which might not even be economically or logistically possible for it, but simply supposing for the sake of discussion), it would probably result in the United States of America intervening, not necessarily out of any concern for California itself so much as to avoid having a military aggressive rogue state on its doorstep. It is entirely possible that secession could eventually turn California into a "Latin American" country in the long term, but that's more a result of their immigration policy choices than any threat of invasion from Mexico.
And there's a few more factors I think worth considering:

Would a independent California be a nation without a military? And I'm not just referring to the existing National Guard, I'm talking about a full fledged army, navy, air force, etc.

I asked a similar question a while back in a thread about Scotland leaving the UK. What happens to all the British bases in Scotland? What happens, in the event that Scotland seceded, to Scottish troops serving in the British armed forces?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm assuming an independent California would have plans for creating a military.

And maybe an independent California remains an ally of the United States? In that case, there's no way Mexico is invading.

Lastly, I'm guessing many of California's citizens would take issue with being invaded by Mexico. I don't expect that these folks would sit idly by.
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,262
here
#32
One more thing.... The Mexican government seems to have quite a lot of problems in exerting control over its existing population. The idea that this same government is going to successfully invade, occupy and wrest control of California seems far fetched.
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
#33
And there's a few more factors I think worth considering:

Would a independent California be a nation without a military? And I'm not just referring to the existing National Guard, I'm talking about a full fledged army, navy, air force, etc.

I asked a similar question a while back in a thread about Scotland leaving the UK. What happens to all the British bases in Scotland? What happens, in the event that Scotland seceded, to Scottish troops serving in the British armed forces?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I'm assuming an independent California would have plans for creating a military.

And maybe an independent California remains an ally of the United States? In that case, there's no way Mexico is invading.

Lastly, I'm guessing many of California's citizens would take issue with being invaded by Mexico. I don't expect that these folks would sit idly by.
In the case of peaceable secession, I would imagine that the first step would be fully transferring control of the Californian National Guard, including responsibility for funding it, to California, which is what, a few tens of thousands of soldiers? Beyond that, looking at the American military and how many of its members come from each state, this is the information I turned up:

Military Active-Duty Personnel, Civilians by State
Numbers of U.S. military service members vary by state, driven mostly by workforce levels at large bases.
There were a total of 1.3 million active duty military and more than 800,000 reserve forces as of September 2017, according to Defense Department personnel data. Total active duty personnel for the five armed service were approximately 472,000 for the Army, 319,000 for the Navy, 319,000 for the Air Force, 184,000 for the Marine Corps and 41,000 for the Coast Guard.
The states with the most total active duty and reserve members of the military, as of September 2017, were:
  • California: 184,540
  • Texas: 164,234
  • Virginia: 115,280
...
I would guess three things:

1) Not all Californians who are employed by the US military would actually want to live in a post-secession California (i.e. they would remain United States citizens and simply choose to move to another state).

2) Not all Californians who are employed by the US military and who remained with California post-secession would want to remain in military work (i.e. they'd transfer to civilian life).

3) The remaining head count after subtracting from points #1 and #2 would still be enough, in concert with the Californian National Guard, to form the core of a new Californian Military, possessed of a reasonable amount of expertise and able to train new soldiers.

From there, it would likely be a question of recruitment. It would probably take some time for California's military to reach parity with, say, Canada's. The fact that the United States would be unlikely to transfer much, if any, military technology to California would mean the force would probably be more defensive than anything for a long time, but that's really all it would need. The primary purpose of a Californian military would be potentially responding to civil unrest or national emergencies anyway.

One more thing.... The Mexican government seems to have quite a lot of problems in exerting control over its existing population. The idea that this same government is going to successfully invade, occupy and wrest control of California seems far fetched.
Yeah, I almost made a quip about how Mexico can't even defeat its local drug cartels, so how could it possibly handle the logistics of national conquest, which would include not just the initial military maneuvers, but managing the local population and fighting a potential insurgency which would include at least some people trained by the American military.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,442
Las Vegas, NV USA
#34
If at first you don't secede try try again. For the southern states , they succeeded in seceding but failed to unite. It's clear that if you separate from the Union you must unite to stay separated. The Confederacy was not united enough because it was full of secessionists.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,872
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#35
In Italy we have been having some political regional movements supporting the idea of the secession of the North. These movements have been able to gather into a party with a not irrelevant popular support, anyway this party knew an evolution towards federalism and now the secessionists are a tiny minority.

In any way, in good substance, the basic idea is to “recognize” that modern Italy had substantially invented in XIX century and that reality is that this country is just the result of the expansion of the Kingdom of Piedmont. Starting from this consideration and underlining the differences between Northern Italy and the rest of the peninsula, the consequence is obvious: the secession of the North which should join a Central European Federation [someone has noted that this federation would look like the ancient German Empire …]. It’s a bit a resurrection of the myth of the “Mitteleuropa” [Middle Europe].

Personally I think that I would be ready to renounce to the national states only if a greater federation would be created putting together the new regional states. At the end one of the reasons why EU doesn’t work is that some of the national states are too big and their weight doesn’t allow a real and functional transfer of power and sovereignty to the EU central authorities. I think that the US model could be suitable to be imitated by Europeans. And probably the United States should think to divide California and Texas …
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,262
here
#36
In the case of peaceable secession, I would imagine that the first step would be fully transferring control of the Californian National Guard, including responsibility for funding it, to California, which is what, a few tens of thousands of soldiers? Beyond that, looking at the American military and how many of its members come from each state, this is the information I turned up:



I would guess three things:

1) Not all Californians who are employed by the US military would actually want to live in a post-secession California (i.e. they would remain United States citizens and simply choose to move to another state).

2) Not all Californians who are employed by the US military and who remained with California post-secession would want to remain in military work (i.e. they'd transfer to civilian life).

3) The remaining head count after subtracting from points #1 and #2 would still be enough, in concert with the Californian National Guard, to form the core of a new Californian Military, possessed of a reasonable amount of expertise and able to train new soldiers.

From there, it would likely be a question of recruitment. It would probably take some time for California's military to reach parity with, say, Canada's. The fact that the United States would be unlikely to transfer much, if any, military technology to California would mean the force would probably be more defensive than anything for a long time, but that's really all it would need. The primary purpose of a Californian military would be potentially responding to civil unrest or national emergencies anyway.



Yeah, I almost made a quip about how Mexico can't even defeat its local drug cartels, so how could it possibly handle the logistics of national conquest, which would include not just the initial military maneuvers, but managing the local population and fighting a potential insurgency which would include at least some people trained by the American military.
I thought this article was interesting: Scottish independence: how would Scotland defend itself?

I wonder how similar California's situation might be in the event of secession?
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,591
San Antonio, Tx
#37
I suspect if California seceded it would suffer a great deal of economic issues due to its controlling and highly socialist government. California also needs to export its prisoners to other states, so that would only compound the issue. Texas might encounter issues, but I doubt it would be on the same level. They even have their own electric grid.

Actually, I kind of want California to secede, if only because it would be further proof of the failure of heavily socialist governments. Though, I would feel bad for people who live there, and others who would be badly affected by the act.

Don’t be ridiculous. Clearly you have no understanding of what “socialism” is. Kindly educate yourself. California is the 5th largest economy on the planet so it is anything but a failure. The state under Jerry Brown is running large budget surpluses. Most red states are running large deficits because of stupid - not to say insane - tax cuts. Your dislike;Ike of California for no valid reasons disqualifies you in this discussion.
 
Oct 2016
136
Ashland
#39
'Maybe I'm naïve...'
In my opinion, you're looking at naïve in the rearview mirror.:zany:
California is to be allowed to secede (HaHa!) and...then what? Annexed to Mexico?:vomit: A sovereign State with a seat in the useless UN, with Jerry Moonbeam Brown as President?
As for your single exception, that would have nixed the one time secession actually occurred on any meaningful scale, that is, the American Civil War; do you really believe that slavery was the only or even major reason for that long-ago rupture in the body politic? Or that one issue is sooo important that every other fades away in deference to it? Why stir up another such ruckus?
No offense intended, but your post is Fantasy, not History and bears about as much relation to history as The Hunger Games.
 
Jul 2017
292
Srpska
#40
Secession for administrative purposes is acceptable only if there is grave danger to culture and people. Otherwise if people enjoy same benefits and rights as all, there is no need for secession, it is unjustified.
Secession where the seceding area has its own military is unacceptable, where seceding area now points guns to motherland -- that is unacceptable, that is high treason. Not everyone can have a military. This is the case with several countries in Europe and they are all terrorist states. Ukraine, Croatia, this is also the case with the Palestinian state in Isreael. You get the point.
Military secession is also unacceptable, and always unacceptable. Using violence to achieve political aims is terrorism. Countries that help this movement, like USA supporting democratic secession by selling arms or by immediate military action are also terrorist states.
Freedom fighters in Idlib are terrorists and traitors. The Hotties in Yemen are terrorists, for example.
If peoples' lives are in danger because of oppressive regimes, armed uprising is justified, but not the secession and especially not military secession.
Helping countries fight oppressive regimes and terrorism is okay. For example, USA fighting North Koreans or Vietnamese who used arms to achieve political aims was good, USA did well in that fight because that was a fight against terrorism. The bad result was that both Koreas for example ended up having two ceding states , and armed against each other. That was high treason.
It boils down to preventing high treason, pointing guns and rockets against each other, and preventing terror, violence for political aims.
To that end, administrative separation as far as civil government is okay. Military separation is never okay. Using violence to protect lives, but not terrorist lives, and also soverignty, integrity, basic rights is okay, but in the end it can only result in civil secession but never military secession.
 

Similar History Discussions