New CSA

[Free Bird]

Say Texas actually followed through with its whining and seceded. Which other states would follow Texas's example to form the new CSA, and who would they make their President? The states don't necessarily have to touch, either

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This literally won't ever happen so why bother?

[King]

They wouldn't last long enough to elect a President. This isn't 1850 where nobody relied on electricity, running water, and USD . If the CSA tried to secede again, their state economies would go belly up within seconds and the international community would not recognize them. There wouldn't even need to be a war.

[pbrower2a]

So that people can be "Tenth Amendment citizens", but only if white? What about those pesky Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments?

Florida and Virginia would definitely not join.

[Free Bird]

This literally won't ever happen so why bother?

Hypotheticals are fun

[publicunofficial]

This literally won't ever happen so why bother?

Hypotheticals are fun

[Blue3]

A more interesting question would be:
which issue would be most likely to drive state(s) to secede?

[RINO Tom]

So that people can be "Tenth Amendment citizens", but only if white? What about those pesky Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments?

Florida and Virginia would definitely not join.

What are you talking about, dude.

Anyway, zero states would follow.

[Free Bird]

I never said it would be about race this time around.

[publicunofficial]

I never said it would be about race this time around.

If you ask most Southerners, it wasn't about race the first time around either.

[AggregateDemand]

They wouldn't last long enough to elect a President. This isn't 1850 where nobody relied on electricity, running water, and USD . If the CSA tried to secede again, their state economies would go belly up within seconds and the international community would not recognize them. There wouldn't even need to be a war.

You're right. The US relies on fossil fuels and Texas is #1 in crude production, natural gas production, and electricity production. We have our own electricity interconnection and electricity reliability council.

The US would have plenty of coal left, though.

[Adam Griffin]

They wouldn't last long enough to elect a President. This isn't 1850 where nobody relied on electricity, running water, and USD . If the CSA tried to secede again, their state economies would go belly up within seconds and the international community would not recognize them. There wouldn't even need to be a war.

You're right. The US relies on fossil fuels and Texas is #1 in crude production, natural gas production, and electricity production. We have our own electricity interconnection and electricity reliability council.

The US would have plenty of coal left, though.

So you're saying free trade isn't necessary?


Most any state would flounder economically very shortly after leaving, and any state that did not would inevitably be bombed and droned into submission. Sizable segments (in most cases, majorities) of the armed forces in these states would not side with their state National Guards and governments, making defense practically impossible (though doing so would be difficult, anyway; read my first sentence). The United States would almost certainly embargo the entities in question, and presumably, practically any other country would refuse to engage economically with them for fear of angering us.

Presumably (like with the Texas example given by AD), the US would first attempt to secure resources and production hubs critical to the national economy in these states at the onset, and attempt to defend them. I imagine it would be easier to do with assets along the coast or off-land. Individuals attempting to "liberate" these facilities from the US would likely be shot, bombed, etc, in the name of national defense. If defense and procurement of these sites became impossible, then I could definitely see a Kuwait-style response in which Texas' power plants, refineries et al are bombed so as to be of no use to anyone. This might also be the first time in which we see mass deployment of EMP technology.

With acute political polarization (as alluded to with the armed forces scenario), one and/or the other of the following would occur: civil war of its own would break out within the seceding territories, and a mass exodus of "non-believers" to more stable areas of the US would occur, causing further economic damage to the areas in question. Practically any and all national/multi-national companies and corporations would close their doors in the affected territory at least temporarily, if not permanently, sealing their fate.

[angus]

Say Texas actually followed through with its whining and seceded. Which other states would follow Texas's example to form the new CSA, and who would they make their President? The states don't necessarily have to touch, either

I think if Texas was successful, then many states would follow suit.  Perhaps a majority.  California would likely have seceded in 2002 over George Bush's war if there were precedent for it.  Alaska has a small and heavily-armed population and would probably give it a try if Texas was successful.  Those wanting to legalize marijuana consumption might as well.  

I do not think that any new CSA would form, though.  The states would find little common ground.  Each would have grievances with Uncle Sam which it considered more important than those of the others.  (Who would be the new president?  It's rather like asking who would be president of the New Scotland and Catalonia Confederation after each secedes from their respective nations.  The answer is "no one."  Also, after a messy divorce, it is never a good idea to get remarried immediately.)  Probably some small ones would unite under a Tea Party-like platform of government, although likely they would be economic failures.  Ultimately, after a few decades, those which would prove economically successful (TX and CA, for example) would probably be recognized by many UN member states as independent nations, although Washington DC would still hold veto power in the UN security council so they might have a hard time being admitted as UN member states.

Judging from polling data, the urge to secede is less than 25% in many of the Eastern and Upper Midwest states.  New England is the least supportive, with the exception of Vermont.  Even in Texas and the Southwest, support for secession is only about 33%, so it's not a likely scenario.  

Just FYI, Here's a graphic that was posted on this forum a few months ago:

http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/

It gets interesting if you apply the age filter.  Note that support for secession is highest among the youngest (~40% for 18-29) and it falls off rapidly with each age group, becoming less than 10% for those over 60.  An upcoming trend?  Or maybe just misguided youth?  I rather think it is the latter.

[Skill and Chance]

Say Texas actually followed through with its whining and seceded. Which other states would follow Texas's example to form the new CSA, and who would they make their President? The states don't necessarily have to touch, either

I think if Texas was successful, then many states would follow suit.  Perhaps a majority.  California would likely have seceded in 2002 over George Bush's war if there were precedent for it.  Alaska has a small and heavily-armed population and would probably give it a try if Texas was successful.  Those wanting to legalize marijuana consumption might as well.  

I do not think that any new CSA would form, though.  The states would find little common ground.  Each would have grievances with Uncle Sam which it considered more important than those of the others.  (Who would be the new president?  It's rather like asking who would be president of the New Scotland and Catalonia Confederation after each secedes from their respective nations.  The answer is "no one."  Also, after a messy divorce, it is never a good idea to get remarried immediately.)  Probably some small ones would unite under a Tea Party-like platform of government, although likely they would be economic failures.  Ultimately, after a few decades, those which would prove economically successful (TX and CA, for example) would probably be recognized by many UN member states as independent nations, although Washington DC would still hold veto power in the UN security council so they might have a hard time being admitted as UN member states.

Judging from polling data, the urge to secede is less than 25% in many of the Eastern and Upper Midwest states.  New England is the least supportive, with the exception of Vermont.  Even in Texas and the Southwest, support for secession is only about 33%, so it's not a likely scenario.  

Just FYI, Here's a graphic that was posted on this forum a few months ago:

http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/

It gets interesting if you apply the age filter.  Note that support for secession is highest among the youngest (~40% for 18-29) and it falls off rapidly with each age group, becoming less than 10% for those over 60.  An upcoming trend?  Or maybe just misguided youth?  I rather think it is the latter.

This is interesting.  With all secession scenarios being highly unlikely, I actually think the most reasonable one involves a 16 or 20 year Republican government nationally that basically allows home rule by the states and state legislative veto of some national laws.  California, New York and New England use the new federalism provisions to basically go their own way.  The conservative federal government doesn't object.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This literally won't ever happen so why bother?

Hypotheticals are fun

Not trite and overused hypotheticals.

[pbrower2a]

If there is to be any secession it will be against a government that becomes increasingly despotic and uses centralized power to $crew those parts of America that dissent (discriminatory taxation, for example).

[angus]

With all secession scenarios being highly unlikely, I actually think the most reasonable one involves a 16 or 20 year Republican government nationally that basically allows home rule by the states and state legislative veto of some national laws. 

An interesting paradox.  Secession becomes more legitimate, or plausible, when the federal government becomes more libertarian, but at the same time it becomes less urgent when the government becomes more libertarian, and therefore it becomes less likely.

[Boston Bread]

If Texas secedes, the democratic city governments should secede from Texas to become free city-states.

[Sumner 1868]

If Texas secedes, the democratic city governments should secede from Texas to become free city-states.

I once saw a Quebec secessionist confronted with this logic, and he started going on about "treaty obligations" making it "illegal." I'm sure similar hypocrisy would occur in this scenario.

[Sol]

IMO Hawai'i is the most likely state to push for independence, and even that's pretty remote.

[angus]

IMO Hawai'i is the most likely state to push for independence, and even that's pretty remote.

Hawaii is at 13% in the reuters poll!  One of the lowest supporters in the nation.

[Badger]

Best graffiti i ever saw once. Someone wrote on an overpass "The South will rise again!" Someone else wrote next to it: "And the north will kick its ass again". Nuff said.