• Obi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Realistically how likely is secession? Pretty unlikely, right? What’s the process like?

      • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 hours ago

        There is also “constitutional convention” path to “a better union” (revoking current government). Secession when threatened by TX gets an ok vibe, but the “right wing states rights” gang sees invading California as completely hinged response, if they suggest it.

        • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          “Can’t?” States are not supposed to secede. People aren’t supposed to commit crimes either, but they do. Some even get away with it.

          • ToastedPlanet
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            As we learned from the American Civil War, the southern states were incapable of seceding. However this isn’t the question at hand. The above user asked this:

            What’s the process like?

            There is no such process.

            • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              The outcome of a war 160 years ago has utterly no relation to how a decision to secede would play out today. I use the word “process” in place of “whatever sequence of actions” might occur if states were to assert their intent to separate from the country. “Secession” might not even be an appropriate term - a resolution could be introduced, through all the correct and proper channels, for the United States to dissolve in an organized fashion, as the Soviet Union did in 1991. There’s really no point saying any political proposal “can’t” happen.

              • ToastedPlanet
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                My point is the North employed violence in the form of a successful military campaign to maintain the Union. Where the North failed was following up with a re-education campaign to squash southern propaganda, such as the myth of the Lost Cause.

            • prole
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 hours ago

              The only thing that prevented the south from seceding was Lincoln’s re-election. Literally.

          • samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            They can’t do it legally without changing the law. Of course, the only laws that will matter soon are those that the GOP supports.

            • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              It’s not like the DON’T WALK sign at the crosswalk. If a state presented Congress with a demand to secede they would have to address it. Simply telling the state it was illegal wouldn’t be enough. The state could take whatever next step they want, the federal government would have to respond, and whatever was going to happen would happen. There’s no point speculating about the results, but if a state got to the point of actually starting this sequence rolling, it wouldn’t just stop with “sorry no you can’t it’s illegal.”

              • ToastedPlanet
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                A jaywalker doesn’t petition the town council to cross the street illegally. They jaywalk. A state seceding could involve as little as a governor declaring their state left the Union. At that point the ball would be in the Federal Government’s court to set the record straight, to clarify that the state in fact did not secede.

                • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  The conversation wouldn’t end there. The state would retort to the effect that, “Oh yes we did,” and the central theme of the discussion would quickly shift away from proper use of the term “secede” and whether a jaywalker analogy works to what everybody is actually going to do about it.

                  • ToastedPlanet
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 hours ago

                    The Federal Government’s current preferred medium of communication is UAVs. They leave little room for further discussion and semantics.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          They could divide the state into as many as 5 states just to fuck with the liberal cities and the Senate though.

          The only reason I see that as unlikely to happen is that all 5 would want to remain as the remaining state of Texas

          • ToastedPlanet
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            They can be North Texas, West Texas, Central Texas, East Texas, and South Texas.

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Pretty unlikely, right?

        Very. The last time, warfare was far less asymmetric than it is now. Millions of people would need to be well past the point of “dying for their values and ideals” before that would get traction politically.

        What’s the process like?

        There literally isn’t one, or at least, not an official one; we’re not the EU. One spot on a map says “no” and the bigger spot on the map around it says “LOL… oh wait you’re serious?” Then they fight.

        Also, the optics are very different for a state like California or any other economic powerhouse in the union. These places make up a huge chunk of the country’s GDP, so losing them would cost a massive chunk of the tax base. Plus, that would reduce the overall coastline of the remainder. Combined these outcomes are strategically “very bad”, further motivating the use of force to counter it.

        • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          Secession is a very complex subject. Besides the issues you mentioned there are tons of consequences of using force. The Civil War was over 160 years ago and we still have lingering grudges. How would our wealthy feel about the impacts of another one on their investments? Or on US bond values and the value of the dollar itself? I feel like analyzing the possibilities is far beyond my Econ 101 knowledge, but it seems like resolving a secession issue with negotiation would be vastly preferable to all parties involved than any armed conflict. I think it would come down to how the most influential people thought any outcome would affect them.

      • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I’ve thought for a long time that the US will end up as a collection of smaller countries. Not looking forward to the transition period.

        • djsoren19@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          The very sad news is that the most likely owners of those smaller countries will be corporations ala banana republics.

          • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            That would be nothing new. After Bonespurs pretty much disemboweled the Republican Party we really had an opportunity to get a solid progressive wave going. The trick is people have to show up.