Based on international law the states would maintain their current borders, that means the urban areas would come along for the ride (IF under an actual referendum the majority was to vote in favor of separation vs the non democratic exercise that is US elections)
The movement would probably see the creation of a new Union instead of just having a bunch of small new countries, so it would be rich enough to equip itself and create an army (and those voting in favor would probably jump on the occasion to defend their new country).
Separation doesn’t happen overnight, you go and fetch support from other countries so you’re not left without any allies or international recognition if the vote is in favor (France was ready to recognize Quebec if any of the two referendums had been in favor of independence).
You didn’t create a “best case scenario”, you just created a scenario that fits your opinion on the subject.
Disclaimer: Am not from the USA, would gladly see it getting split in multiple countries just like I would gladly see Canada split in multiple countries as I think in both cases it would stop some parts of the country from slowing down progress in other parts. Ex.: If Mississippi and its citizens want to live in a third world country so much then so be it, let the rest of the US move forward.
Sorry, but wrong on many points. If the conservative states were ever going to leave the Union it would have to be a quick transition as a longer process ensures that it won’t happen.
One: The US as a whole is far more homogeneous than European democracies. It’s not like in Europe where you can drive a few hours and find a whole different language and culture. Those asking for a separation are a extreme minority even within their states. Even with them being in power, the moment they actually move towards separation they literally will be murdered in a few days.
Two: during the slow negotiation for separation, red states would be responsible for their debts. States like Mississippi and Kentucky would have to back out of the separation because they’d become Haiti (economically) once the separation was complete.
Three: even if they peacefully negotiated with blue states, violence would break out in urban areas because red states wouldn’t be leaving to create their own American style for of democracy. It would be a Christan Nationalist oligarchy. They want this separation to reinstate slavery, women’s suffrage, and genicide of all LGBTQ+ individuals. This one is inevitable regardless how the separation goes. But a slow separation just gives those urban areas time to prepare for war.
There is no best case scenario. It’s not a feasible plan. I don’t understand why this even gets discussed as anything other than a fantasy or a thought exercise.
Many states are in a much better position than many existing countries. Just because you refuse to consider it doesn’t make it non feasible.
You get to have your go at a thought experiment but others you disagree with don’t get to do the same?
Edit: Have yet to see someone explain why, for example, Iceland can be an independent country but it’s impossible to imagine Texas or the Carolinas being independent countries except for “People who don’t agree would revolt and the US would bomb the place!” Is it so hard to imagine a future where both sides agree that the union experiment didn’t work and it’s better to just split the country in chunks than continue with the status quo? Even for a thought experiment? Use that wonderful thing we call “imagination”.
Just looking at GDP/capita you can see that there are many red States that are above many European countries. The most popular example obviously is Texas at a secessionist movement has existed there for a very very long time… They have access to the ocean, a border with Mexico, resources… If they left it would probably lead to a movement where other states would want to join them to create the “United Republics of America” (to keep with the Republican theme)…
Just don’t have an extreme weather event or have any of their people with healthcare, who do you think pays to pick up the pieces? GDP/capita is not the final answer.
If you go by that logic then the USA in general can’t work as a country when compared with most other first world nations because all bad events always ends up being worse there than elsewhere. Guess the US should just reintegrate the British Empire then 🤷
Texas is going purple, though. The many, many people there that live there and are Democrats, are they going to be cool with turning it into a totally shithole country?
Texas’ GDP is what it is because it’s part of the United States.
You’re so simple you think Texas could secede from the United States and the companies and industries that promote that GDP would stay there? If clueless was a person it’s be you.
Here’s the summary for you so you don’t have to struggle through all of the points made:
Bottom line is that, yes, Texas today is a financial powerhouse. But most of that is because Texas is part of the USA with a bunch of laws that let businesses get away with things they can’t get away with elsewhere. And in part, sure, like California, they have a lifestyle that attracts those with regional mobility, like engineers. But that’s still dependent on being part of the USA.
Going independent, Texas can’t use the rest of the USA to pay, one way or another, for their “pro-business” policies. They can’t fund half the cost of state government with Federal money. They can’t make a profit on the military — they have to figure out how to pay for one. And pretty much, just as other third world countries only get the low-end of production, there’s no way an Independent Texas with economic problems, rampant unemployment, crazies in office, etc. gets much interest from investors or big business in the USA or anywhere else.
There’s also a very large potential for domination by organized crime. The Mexican drug cartels would have little trouble moving into Texas and setting up shop. The USA as a whole can pool a very large amount of money to protect the southern border, because the northern border with Canada, our Western border on the Pacific, and our eastern border on the Atlantic (yeah, that’s me waving!) need relatively little protective effort. But the Republic of Texas would be a small country with some need to be concerned about every border, but particularly their border with Mexico.
Why are you confrontational? You’re more emotionally invested in this than I am I guess.
I don’t care about thought exercises, anybody can hypothesize whatever scenario they want but there is no best case scenario because it’s not feasible.
From a purely practical perspective there is no way this could happen and giving credence to it only benefits these extremist types.
You might not be American but you sure act like one. Pretending to be an authority on a country that isn’t yours is a distinctly American behavior on the internet.
Ain’t that the whole point of common law? There’s no legal framework -> go to court -> set the precedent -> there’s your framework
Separatists have to support each others, my nation’s separatist movement is older than anyone alive today. If some US states feel like they would be better off outside the union then good on them, the super nation experiment has run its course, it’s the same as empires of ages past and I don’t see anyone here defending the British Empire and being against Canada’s Confederation or saying that Haiti should still be a French colony… Weird how hard it is to apply equal standards to everyone 🤷
Precedent like Texas v. White? Or when Antonin Scalia wrote, “The answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘one Nation, indivisible.’)”?
Based on international law the states would maintain their current borders, that means the urban areas would come along for the ride (IF under an actual referendum the majority was to vote in favor of separation vs the non democratic exercise that is US elections)
The movement would probably see the creation of a new Union instead of just having a bunch of small new countries, so it would be rich enough to equip itself and create an army (and those voting in favor would probably jump on the occasion to defend their new country).
Separation doesn’t happen overnight, you go and fetch support from other countries so you’re not left without any allies or international recognition if the vote is in favor (France was ready to recognize Quebec if any of the two referendums had been in favor of independence).
You didn’t create a “best case scenario”, you just created a scenario that fits your opinion on the subject.
Disclaimer: Am not from the USA, would gladly see it getting split in multiple countries just like I would gladly see Canada split in multiple countries as I think in both cases it would stop some parts of the country from slowing down progress in other parts. Ex.: If Mississippi and its citizens want to live in a third world country so much then so be it, let the rest of the US move forward.
Sorry, but wrong on many points. If the conservative states were ever going to leave the Union it would have to be a quick transition as a longer process ensures that it won’t happen.
One: The US as a whole is far more homogeneous than European democracies. It’s not like in Europe where you can drive a few hours and find a whole different language and culture. Those asking for a separation are a extreme minority even within their states. Even with them being in power, the moment they actually move towards separation they literally will be murdered in a few days.
Two: during the slow negotiation for separation, red states would be responsible for their debts. States like Mississippi and Kentucky would have to back out of the separation because they’d become Haiti (economically) once the separation was complete.
Three: even if they peacefully negotiated with blue states, violence would break out in urban areas because red states wouldn’t be leaving to create their own American style for of democracy. It would be a Christan Nationalist oligarchy. They want this separation to reinstate slavery, women’s suffrage, and genicide of all LGBTQ+ individuals. This one is inevitable regardless how the separation goes. But a slow separation just gives those urban areas time to prepare for war.
There is no best case scenario. It’s not a feasible plan. I don’t understand why this even gets discussed as anything other than a fantasy or a thought exercise.
Many states are in a much better position than many existing countries. Just because you refuse to consider it doesn’t make it non feasible.
You get to have your go at a thought experiment but others you disagree with don’t get to do the same?
Edit: Have yet to see someone explain why, for example, Iceland can be an independent country but it’s impossible to imagine Texas or the Carolinas being independent countries except for “People who don’t agree would revolt and the US would bomb the place!” Is it so hard to imagine a future where both sides agree that the union experiment didn’t work and it’s better to just split the country in chunks than continue with the status quo? Even for a thought experiment? Use that wonderful thing we call “imagination”.
Which of the states that would secede are in a good place to do that?
Just looking at GDP/capita you can see that there are many red States that are above many European countries. The most popular example obviously is Texas at a secessionist movement has existed there for a very very long time… They have access to the ocean, a border with Mexico, resources… If they left it would probably lead to a movement where other states would want to join them to create the “United Republics of America” (to keep with the Republican theme)…
Just don’t have an extreme weather event or have any of their people with healthcare, who do you think pays to pick up the pieces? GDP/capita is not the final answer.
If you go by that logic then the USA in general can’t work as a country when compared with most other first world nations because all bad events always ends up being worse there than elsewhere. Guess the US should just reintegrate the British Empire then 🤷
That doesn’t even make sense.
Extreme weather no matter where in the USA is a shit show because the various levels of government are fighting each other.
Healthcare in the USA in general is a shit show compared to all other first world countries and even some developing countries.
If that’s good enough to argue that Texas couldn’t make it as a country then the same argument can be applied to the USA in general, can’t it?
Texas is going purple, though. The many, many people there that live there and are Democrats, are they going to be cool with turning it into a totally shithole country?
Texas’ GDP is what it is because it’s part of the United States.
You’re so simple you think Texas could secede from the United States and the companies and industries that promote that GDP would stay there? If clueless was a person it’s be you.
Right, because companies don’t exist outside the USA.
You truly redefine dumb don’t you?
Here’s the summary for you so you don’t have to struggle through all of the points made:
Quora…
That’s your source? Why not link to a comment thread on 4chan while you’re at it?
And I’m the one redefining dumb somehow?
Why are you confrontational? You’re more emotionally invested in this than I am I guess.
I don’t care about thought exercises, anybody can hypothesize whatever scenario they want but there is no best case scenario because it’s not feasible.
From a purely practical perspective there is no way this could happen and giving credence to it only benefits these extremist types.
You might not be American but you sure act like one. Pretending to be an authority on a country that isn’t yours is a distinctly American behavior on the internet.
I don’t care about thought exercisesUnless it’s yours 🤷
It’s not mine, I’m not the commenter you originally replied to.
That’s what the original commenter said. What I’m saying is it’s not feasible, in part because there is no legal framework for this.
This is one heck of a dog whistle if it’s reaching all the way outside the US.
Ain’t that the whole point of common law? There’s no legal framework -> go to court -> set the precedent -> there’s your framework
Separatists have to support each others, my nation’s separatist movement is older than anyone alive today. If some US states feel like they would be better off outside the union then good on them, the super nation experiment has run its course, it’s the same as empires of ages past and I don’t see anyone here defending the British Empire and being against Canada’s Confederation or saying that Haiti should still be a French colony… Weird how hard it is to apply equal standards to everyone 🤷
Precedent like Texas v. White? Or when Antonin Scalia wrote, “The answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘one Nation, indivisible.’)”?
Are you sure you’re not American?
In Texas v. White’s ruling:
There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.Scalia’s opinion on the subject was shared as an answer to a letter so it has no legal precedence.