|
|
|
|
|
|
by humanrebar
3377 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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?