Secessionist wanking...

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-12-12 07:59am

Knife wrote:Blah. That is the lamest thing I've seen in a while.

Besides, Utah would be the nation of Zion.

No, it would be Deseret. As it was once before under the Mormons.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-12-12 09:01am

Maybe secession of the typically fundie areas would be a good thing, they'd all turn to shit while the "liberal" united states would go from strength to strength in the world, because they'd be socially progressive, without all that brain dead weight of the southern states holding them back.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-12-12 10:04am

Rye wrote:Maybe secession of the typically fundie areas would be a good thing, they'd all turn to shit while the "liberal" united states would go from strength to strength in the world, because they'd be socially progressive, without all that brain dead weight of the southern states holding them back.

Don't get too fooled, there are a lot of brain-dead fuckups in the blue states, too. Just we've got enough smarties to cancel them out somewhat.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 2004-12-12 11:28am

Perhaps it is just me but assuming that the country was to break up (assuming to vast change in the whole system) wouldn't the "fly over" likely go with the southeast instead of forming thier own enclave?

So how long before the south west is reclaimed?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 2004-12-12 11:32am

damn lack of edit

that should read
(assuming no vast change in the whole system)

I have no idea how my finger found 't' instead of 'n'.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-12-12 11:34am

Why does this remind me of Crimson Skies??

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-12-12 11:38am

the "plains states" would instantly become the largest nuclear power in the world.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-12-12 12:27pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:the "plains states" would instantly become the largest nuclear power in the world.

Assuming they had enough competent engineers to maintain the facilities, that is.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-12-12 12:50pm

I'm trying to fathom why Minnesota has more in common with Maryland than Ontario.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-12-12 02:57pm

Howedar wrote:I'm trying to fathom why Minnesota has more in common with Maryland than Ontario.

I am too. If the United States broke up, Minnesota would probably petition Canada for entry.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2004-12-12 03:47pm

Iceberg wrote:
Howedar wrote:I'm trying to fathom why Minnesota has more in common with Maryland than Ontario.
I am too. If the United States broke up, Minnesota would probably petition Canada for entry.

They aren't the only ones. I'd be willing to bet that Canada would try to grab as many states on the border as they could.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-12-12 04:13pm

I'm betting the plains states would be trying as hard as they could to buy some great-lakes access.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2004-12-12 04:19pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I'm betting the plains states would be trying as hard as they could to buy some great-lakes access.

And I'm sure Canada would love to have complete control of the great lakes. And you can bet Canada would make a grab for New York, or at the very least Western New York.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-12-12 05:33pm

Iceberg wrote:
Howedar wrote:I'm trying to fathom why Minnesota has more in common with Maryland than Ontario.
I am too. If the United States broke up, Minnesota would probably petition Canada for entry.

And from what I'm told, Alberta might petition the United States for entry.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-12-12 06:25pm

If the US broke up, the Midwestern and Plains states would have every reason to join Canada, especially the Canadian rump state on this map. Linguistically and culturally, the flyover states, especially the upper midwest, are very close to Canada, and there are important economic ties as well.

Cut off from the rest of the country, the Northeast would suffer a serious economic decline, population decline, or both. The region isn't self sufficient in food, electricity, or natural resources. It would make sense for them to join the Canadian rump as well. Otherwise, what you'll have is a disaster area and more secessions, county by county possibly (what possible reason would Western New York have for riding down the drain with New York City when Toronto and Buffalo are less than 100 miles apart?)

While we're breaking up countries, why would the Maritimes and Quebec secede from Canada yet the Prarie provinces and British Columbia don't? The Praries might be stuck if the Plains states join Canada, but it British Colombia might make a go for it along with Oregon and Washington (and maybe Alaska?). I think Vancouver and Seattle have more in common than Vancouver and Calgary.

The Mormons will get grabby, but how many counties they can steal from neighboring states is an interesting question. Another interesting question: could Arizona and New Mexico repel Mexico if Mexico decided to reverse 1848? And if they could, could they prevent demographics from turning them into a Spanish speaking republic in 50 years anyway?

Out of a possible breakup of the US and Canada, I can see two really viable states forming--a United States of Canada and a revived CSA. Quebec, California and Cascadia could hold their own, but would be regional powers at most. AZ and NM are tossups--they could go to California, to Mexico, to the CSA, to Deseret. If they go on their own, they'll fail. Too much desert, too many people, not enough water, not enough cropland. Deseret will function and remain a democracy, but will be thinly populated over much of its territory and the government in Salt Lake City will always be under pressure from Mormon fanatics.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-12-12 06:41pm

I could definately see Washington and possibly Oregon going to Canada.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » 2004-12-12 09:40pm

If Quebec goes, Northern Quebec, Montreal, Eastern Townships (region near Vermont), and the Gatineau will probably separate back into Canada.

If the rest of the United States balkanize, I can see the North Easternmost (Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire) joining New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland and either form their own country (which would be poor and have difficulties), or join the rest of Canada, which, with the parts of Quebec that separate with Quebec, would maintain a land connection.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-12-12 11:43pm

Cut off from the rest of the country, the Northeast would suffer a serious economic decline, population decline, or both. The region isn't self sufficient in food, electricity, or natural resources.

I can see the same for California too. While Cali has its own food supply and a hell of a economy, it imports power at a ridiculous level, even from Utah, and most of So. Cal's water comes from the mountain states too. The Mormon's will get rich off of Cali's importing its power and water, that is if Colorado doesn't bankrupt Utah and damn the colorado river.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-12-13 02:24am

For the curious, my bog-standard counter to the 9th and 10th Amendments argument. I just had to type this all out, so I thought I'd give it to you guys for your enjoyment and possible use.

Any given Confederate apologist wrote:The 9th and 10th Amendments say we can do anything the Constitution doesn't say we can't do, and it doesn't say we can't secede, so we obviously can.

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 wrote:To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

So if insurrection is legal, why is the federal government empowered to suppress it, hmmm?

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 wrote:The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 wrote:No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Confederacy is out.

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 wrote:No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

As is keeping all those troops they were keeping. Following so far?

United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 wrote:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

So, who's running the Army again? Ain't the states.

United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Now then, who was levying war against the United States? Oh, that's right...

United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 wrote:The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This one's the kicker. When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Secession is such a violation. Here is that Clause, in case you've forgotten:

United States Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2 wrote:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I think I'm done. There's your Constitutional argument against secession, with the final two being the doom of legal secession and the preceding cited Clauses being the justification of the federal government's power to do what it did in the rebellious states.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-12-13 09:22am

Peregrin Toker wrote:Why does this remind me of Crimson Skies??

That's what I was thinking.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-12-13 05:38pm

I'd think it would turn out more like what's suggested on this map:

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-12-14 06:14am

Patrick Degan wrote:I'd think it would turn out more like what's suggested on this map:

[img] <snip>

it seems you have some evildoers in Madagasgar.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-12-14 10:22am

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Patrick Degan wrote:I'd think it would turn out more like what's suggested on this map:

[img] <snip>
it seems you have some evildoers in Madagasgar.

If they make trouble, my batallions in South Africa will effortlessly crush them.