[humanrebar]

> ...the idea of California leaving bears many similarities to South Carolina during the 1800s, and we know how quickly that turned into war.

1. Asking people ignore slavery's contributions to the civil war is not reasonable.

2. Many states, California included to some degree, feel the very nature of the United States has been slowly eroding for some time with no real checks on that erosion. There will be a tipping point eventually. Peaceful secessions (with the option to re-enter the union if it's mutually agreed upon) seem like a good way for states to enforce the principles of federalism, especially since the national government, Supreme Court included, seem disinterested in that goal. Real violence seems the most likely when people feel wronged, unheard, and that they have no reasonable and peaceful way to address the issues. Keeping people trapped in a country they feel doesn't represent them seems like a recipe for violence, not a way to preserve the peace.

[Dan_Nguyen]

1. Even if you take slavery into account, I see a lot of similarities between the Civil War and CalExit.

For the southern states, many wanted to keep slavery for economic reasons. It was very cheap labor, and banning slavery would have meant less money for Southern states imposed on them by outsiders who did not live their societies or work their jobs.

I see the same parallels here with CalExit. Even on this thread, people bring up how California unfairly pays more net to the federal government while red states take more federal resources. CalExit doesn't have the (IMO) moral reprehension of slavery, but from my perspective I see people upset that outsiders who don't share our lives and views are dictating our bottom line.

2. I highly doubt that the federal government would let any state undergo peaceful secession. A secession by its nature is a threat to the United States. Allowing states to leave will mean the states aren't united. Furthermore, it won't just be California. Off the top of my head, states like Washington, Oregon, and New York are generally as unhappy as California in with the state of our government, and allowing one state to leave will open the floodgates for other states.

This to me means the obvious consequence is violence erupts if we attempt to secede, even with peaceful intentions at first. As another user on this thread stated, California will not win an armed conflict. The US military is much stronger than our California National Guard.

I understand your political sentiments, and I do agree that the current state of national politics is a major issue. However, I don't see a peaceful CalExit as either practical or realistic.

[gremlinsinc]

I honestly think that for a long time as corruption has gotten worse in America, so too has America become 'too big NOT to fail'. Every major empire in history -- even ones founded as Republics have fallen. We're not likely to stop history from repeating itself.

If there were 50 different states, hopefully w/ open borders - each state could dictate their own social programs. Some could be a lot more like Denmark/Sweden.. others more like the old U.S.A. where you fend for yourself, and look out for nobody else. Each state would be able to set their own agendas, taxes, etc.. -- There would be more competition between individual states to attract the best people/talent/companies/etc... to grow their economies.

I don't think it's a matter of what if, but when.

[humanrebar]

The South seceded so it could keep the "right" to own human beings. There was a sense of moral duty on the part of many in the U.S. to literally fight to make sure that injustice wasn't perpetuated. There's no analog in a California secession.

Of course, there probably aren't strong opinions about this either way, but most red state citizens I know would have a more "good riddance" attitude about California leaving the U.S., especially if trade and travel were relatively open between the countries. Meaning, I don't see the political math adding up to total war in this case.

[dragonwriter]

> There was a sense of moral duty on the part of many in the U.S. to literally fight to make sure that injustice wasn't perpetuated. There's no analog in a California secession.

While it may not have been, independent of the slavery issue, at the time of the Civil War (though even that is debatable), the indivisibility of the Union is now a moral issue with a substantial segment of the population.

And, in fact, many of the things that would be defining issues for a California/US split under the current regime are moral issues that their supporters (on both sides, and in opposing ways) see as direct analogs to slavery. (Abortion rights on one side vs. rights of the unborn on the other being a prime example.)

> especially if trade and travel were relatively open between the countries

Why on Earth would you expect that either the current protectionist, closed-borders Washington regime or any hypothetical separatist Sacramento regime seeking to free California from it would support "relatively open" trade and travel?

[echaozh]

> Why on Earth would you expect that either the current protectionist, closed-borders Washington regime or any hypothetical separatist Sacramento regime seeking to free California from it would support "relatively open" trade and travel?

Exactly, people are taking CalExit too lightly. Man, it's basically treason and people talk about it like growing up and moving out of home.

[humanrebar]

Was it treason when Canada left the British Empire?