That’s the problem … if you are damned if you stay and damned if you leave … everyone starts weighing the options of either situation
The choices for staying become … stay and beholden to federal government that ties your hands, manipulates your economy and uses you for their benefit while never allowing you to do what your people want for themselves
or … secede and fight a political, economic and possibly even a military conflict to decide your own future
either options is terrible in the long run (if things continue as they are) but staying means things stay indefinitely terrible while seceding gives a higher chance of political autonomy.
For one, because the way that the government is set up means that you would need the cooperation of at least 26 states to ensure control of the legislative and executive branches, and even then, the Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointments, so you’d have to wait a long time to get the judicial branch on board. So you’d have to wage a war of conquest to secure the entire country. For another, much of the country is a burden on California’s economy. They’re the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world on their own, and many of the states are dependent on their tax money and produce.
I think if you’re seriously talking about seceding, the most practical/logical plan would be a coalition of like-minded states seceding to form their own nation or EU style group of nation-states. The most likely to consider it would probably be the west coast and the northern end of the east coast (New England specifically), which would be a logistical nightmare for everyone involved - both for the US having hostile nations on all sides as well as any seceding states trying to trade across a hostile country between them. Though aid from friendly countries would be easily available, as both coasts border Canada (and Mexico on the west) and have plenty of infrastructure for trade internationally.
That’s the problem … if you are damned if you stay and damned if you leave … everyone starts weighing the options of either situation
The choices for staying become … stay and beholden to federal government that ties your hands, manipulates your economy and uses you for their benefit while never allowing you to do what your people want for themselves
or … secede and fight a political, economic and possibly even a military conflict to decide your own future
either options is terrible in the long run (if things continue as they are) but staying means things stay indefinitely terrible while seceding gives a higher chance of political autonomy.
If you’re going that far, why wouldn’t you want the other states? Just take over the whole government instead of trying to secede.
For one, because the way that the government is set up means that you would need the cooperation of at least 26 states to ensure control of the legislative and executive branches, and even then, the Supreme Court justices are lifetime appointments, so you’d have to wait a long time to get the judicial branch on board. So you’d have to wage a war of conquest to secure the entire country. For another, much of the country is a burden on California’s economy. They’re the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world on their own, and many of the states are dependent on their tax money and produce.
I think if you’re seriously talking about seceding, the most practical/logical plan would be a coalition of like-minded states seceding to form their own nation or EU style group of nation-states. The most likely to consider it would probably be the west coast and the northern end of the east coast (New England specifically), which would be a logistical nightmare for everyone involved - both for the US having hostile nations on all sides as well as any seceding states trying to trade across a hostile country between them. Though aid from friendly countries would be easily available, as both coasts border Canada (and Mexico on the west) and have plenty of infrastructure for trade internationally.
There’s not a large difference between that and a war for secession. Either way it’s violence.
One is holding ground that you already own vs. taking ground by force. From a military standpoint, there’s a massive difference.
Not that I disagree that it’s violence either way, mind you. It’s just a different scale and situation.