Ship of Fools: #Texit, #Calexit, #Alaskexit, #Hexit, #NHexit, #SIexit

Thread: #Texit, #Calexit, #Alaskexit, #Hexit, #NHexit, #SIexit Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030152

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I thank our British friends for opening up a can of worms over here.

Several states have groups that would love to see their state declare their sovereignty from the US. Even one New York Borough is chomping at the bit as well.

Three of the state groups do claim they have a right to exit the US because they were sovereign before being annexed by the US--Texas, California and Hawaii.

Alaska, well, it is what it is.They claim since they have no common border with any other state in the US there is no reason to stay in the union.

(Of course, that could be easily solved if the #BCexit people get any footing--every so often there are rumblings from BC to join the US.)

New Hampshire was the last of the original thirteen states to ratify the Constitution so that group argues NH was conned into joining the US and they want to right an error.

Staten Island is even getting into the act. While those people do not want to leave the US per se, they would love to become their own self governing city--and maybe even join New Jersey, assuming a current NJ governor is removed from office.

You Brits just had to pull the lose thread on the cloth and now everything is unraveling.

In truth: the states will probably not exit. They depend on the US for subsidies and security.

And in 1869 in Texas v White the US Supreme Court ruled that the US is indivisible.

After all we fought a civil war over that point.

But I am rooting for Staten Island, the forgotten borough of New York City. They do deserve more respect.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Three of the state groups do claim they have a right to exit the US because they were sovereign before being annexed by the US--Texas, California and Hawaii.

The original 13 states were also sovereign before the Union was formed, but as you noted, we know what happened when 4 of those 13 attempted to secede.

Texas and South Carolina both threaten to secede at least once a decade, and have done so for as long as I can remember. Nothing new under the sun.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Hey - it wasn't your British Ship friends, we wanted IN. I don't think any shippers were in the out camp?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Turning this thread into a pond war, or turning it into a "how I voted" thread, will lead to it being closed faster than you can regret a referendum.

Thank you all for your cooperation.

/hosting

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

One of the big issues with the EU - if you believe the press at least - is that many people don't like other countries being allowed to move freely for work in the EU. So we have loads of Polish workers in the UK because we need the workers and there's no money to be made in Poland*.
Does the same thing happen between American states? Do Texans object to Californians "coming over here and taking all our jobs" for example?

*When it was British tradesmen going to Germany in the 1980s, no one objected.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:

But I am rooting for Staten Island, the forgotten borough of New York City. They do deserve more respect.

So let them join New Jersey. They're already connected to NJ by a bridge anyway. Or do they really want the commuters on those ferries to have to go through Customs twice a day?

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

As for Texas, they are, as they like to say, all hat and no cattle. Sure, they talk about seceding all the time, but do they ever talk about paying back their proportionate share of the national debt? Of course not. They were bankrupt when they first asked us to assume their national debt and admit them to the Union, and they've been trying to leave the Union and leave the rest of us holding the bag ever since. (Except in the 1980's, when all of their banks collapsed and we had to change federal banking laws to bail them out all over again. Then it was only holding the bag, but not leaving.)

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Certainly not intending on making this a pond war. We already did that 240 years ago.

Actually, I posted this as a tongue in cheek. But you do have to admit there are a number of other regions even in Europe who want to continue to unravel the cloth of which they are made.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

In truth: the states will probably not exit. They depend on the US for subsidies and security.

In truth, I don't believe most of those clamouring for freedom have any real understanding of the practical aspects of their desire.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:

But I am rooting for Staten Island, the forgotten borough of New York City. They do deserve more respect.
So let them join New Jersey. They're already connected to NJ by a bridge anyway. Or do they really want the commuters on those ferries to have to go through Customs twice a day?

Many of those commuters come from New Jersey proper anyway. The border between New Jersey and New York is to say the least odd. Ellis Island and Liberty Island in New York harbor are officially part of New York but the surrounding waters are New Jersey. There was even a court case between New York and New Jersey about the parts of Ellis Island that were landfill (most of it); was the extension to the island New York or New Jersey? The Supreme Court ruled (1997) New Jersey even if it mean the boundary went through the middle of a building (New Jersey and New York eventually came to an agreement to cover items like sales tax).

There are some other oddities of US geography. Fishers Island, New York which is only reachable, by ferry, from Connecticut.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
One of the big issues with the EU - if you believe the press at least - is that many people don't like other countries being allowed to move freely for work in the EU. So we have loads of Polish workers in the UK because we need the workers and there's no money to be made in Poland*.
Does the same thing happen between American states? Do Texans object to Californians "coming over here and taking all our jobs" for example?

Periodically, yes. When manufacturing jobs started becoming scarce up north many Texans resented the Yankees who were coming to look for work.

Partly its jobs,

partly you hear regional complaints about "them" moving "here" and then trying to change "our" laws or culture to be more like where "they" came from. Yankee, go home!

About 2 decades ago big battles about welfare migration, California said they would pay welfare recipients from other states the amount that state paid, not California's higher amount (for a year) to reduce welfare shopping, going to whatever state pays the most.

Sound like a familiar complaint and proposal?

Supreme Court said freedom of travel means california cannot pay lower welfare to migrants than they pay long term residents on welfare.

(There is also an issue of double dipping - people claiming welfare payments from two states by not informing the state they moved from so the checks keep coming because each state has a separate record keeping system.)

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Of course, there are some states which the rest of us would love to see leave the Union. Maybe then we could get some decent gun regulation put into effect.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:

There are some other oddities of US geography. Fishers Island, New York which is only reachable, by ferry, from Connecticut.

Even farther east, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, and the Elizabeth Islands have been part of Massachusetts since the 1690's, but they originally comprised Duke's County, New York: before then, Manhattan had been King's County, Long Island had been Queen's County, and the islands east of Long Island were Duke's County. (I don't know what the jurisdictional status of Fisher's and Block islands was back then.) When they were annexed to Mass. and this sensible scheme was disrupted, Nantucket became its own county as well as a town (making it the only single-municipality county in the state), and the rump Duke's County became what is now still officially if redundantly titled the "County of Dukes County".

In 1977 the Mass. legislature was reorganized, and in an echo of English "rotten boroughs" reform, MV and Nantucket were consolidated into a larger legislative district, so they lost their dedicated representatives in the state house. Talk of secession from Mass. ran high, but nobody wanted to rejoin NY. An offer to be annexed by Vermont was seriously entertained for a while, but then the summer tourist season started, everybody got busy again, and nothing ever came of it. The discussions never advanced far enough to determine whether the Elizabeth Islands (with only about a dozen voters and maybe 50 permanent residents) would remain in Mass. or follow the Vineyard into Vermont, thus dividing the county yet again.

[ 03. July 2016, 15:59: Message edited by: fausto ]

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

(Of course, that could be easily solved if the #BCexit people get any footing--every so often there are rumblings from BC to join the US.)

That could, at least, make life easier for the residents of Port Roberts, Washington, whose only connection to the mainland US is through Canada.

There have always been complaints about migrants from other states: California complained about the Okies and other Dust Bowl refugees, while in more recent years the motto further North was, "Don't Californicate Oregon". Then, of course, there have been persistent efforts for Northern California to split off from Southern California, and the current "State of Jefferson".

Texas does, in theory, have the authority to split into some number of smaller states (a condition of the original statehood application). Whether that would actually improve the Republican's position on Congress depends on the appearance of that common Texas political critter, the Gerrymander. And since smaller states with fewer Electoral votes usually don't have the same political power, I suspect it will remain a theoretical option rather than a practical one.

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

(Of course, that could be easily solved if the #BCexit people get any footing--every so often there are rumblings from BC to join the US.)

That could, at least, make life easier for the residents of Port Roberts, Washington, whose only connection to the mainland US is through Canada.

And it would also finally resolve the "Fifty Four Forty or Fight" controversy in favor of the US without resorting to bloodshed.

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
Texas does, in theory, have the authority to split into some number of smaller states (a condition of the original statehood application). Whether that would actually improve the Republican's position on Congress depends on the appearance of that common Texas political critter, the Gerrymander. And since smaller states with fewer Electoral votes usually don't have the same political power, I suspect it will remain a theoretical option rather than a practical one.

Each new state would get two senators, so that would increase overall representation in the Senate. But since seats in the House are allocated among the states in per-capita proportions, the balance of power in the House wouldn't change much (except for the possible effect of gerrymandering, as you note).

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
In truth, I don't believe most of those clamouring for freedom have any real understanding of the practical aspects of their desire.

Hostly warnings about Brexit contamination of this thread notwithstanding, this comment seems too...topical...to pass by.

[ 03. July 2016, 19:12: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

quote:

Does the same thing happen between American states? Do Texans object to Californians "coming over here and taking all our jobs" for example?

There is still some lingering animosity between Texas and Alaska from the days of the pipeline construction, in which many Texas oil workers participated and behaved like, well....Texans. Similar to current northern state residents who migrate to the south (for obvious reasons) and endlessly complain about how much better it's done up north.

Alaskan workers even developed helpful instructions on getting back to Texas. Travel south till you smell shit, then go east until you're standing in it.

[ 03. July 2016, 19:13: Message edited by: romanlion ]

Posted by fausto (# 13737) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

Does the same thing happen between American states? Do Texans object to Californians "coming over here and taking all our jobs" for example?

No, there is some animosity between states that occurs when one state offers incentives for a big employer in another state to relocate, but in that circumstance the "raider" state is trying to attract new workers from outside, not exporting its workers to a more prosperous area to compete against the locals.

The kind of animosity that you describe is voiced more typically against (mostly Mexican) foreign workers who enter the country illegally and are paid on the black market, below the legal minimum wage, without the usual package of benefits. In the 2012 presidential campaign, for example, Mitt Romney was embarrassed by news reports revealing that the landscaping service that maintained his yard employed illegal workers at low wages.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
New Hampshire was the last of the original thirteen states to ratify the Constitution so that group argues NH was conned into joining the US and they want to right an error.

Actually that was Rhode Island. New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify the constitution and the last to do so before the Constitution went into effect. The Constitution stipulated that it would go into effect as soon as three quarters of the 13 original states ratified it, which happened when Virginia did so four days after New Hampshire.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
In truth: the states will probably not exit. They depend on the US for subsidies and security.

In truth, I don't believe most of those clamouring for freedom have any real understanding of the practical aspects of their desire.

One blogger posted a hypothetical conversation between a newly-independent Texas and the U.S.:

quote:
When Texas Secedes
The conversation with Uncle Sam will be something like:

You aren't going to close your military bases, are you?
Well, yes.

You aren't going to close the borders and enact border checks, are you?
Well, yes.

You aren't going to require visas for Texan patriots to visit the US, are you?
Quite possibly.

You aren't going to end all of those transfer payments you make?
Hell yes.

What about the Social Security owed to our residents?
Interesting question, isn't it.

There aren't going to be tariffs between our nations, are there?
Everything is negotiable.

My child just married an American. Will he be able to live in the US?
That's complicated...

etc.

[ 03. July 2016, 20:07: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

While it might be logistically difficult to manage Texas seceding (due to extensive borders, etc), Alaska could be sliced off with little strain. The same could be said of Hawaii.

Of course, if Alaska did secede and became a separate nation, it would last only a month or two before it would be annexed by Canada, Russia, North Korea, South Korea or China.

For my part, I would regret losing Hawaii far more than losing Alaska.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fausto:

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

Does the same thing happen between American states? Do Texans object to Californians "coming over here and taking all our jobs" for example?
No, there is some animosity between states that occurs when one state offers incentives for a big employer in another state to relocate, but in that circumstance the "raider" state is trying to attract new workers from outside, not exporting its workers to a more prosperous area to compete against the locals.

In this state there was during the 1960s great animosity about Californian aircraft workers moving up here and taking jobs from Washington natives. Signs, bumperstickers, etc. saying things like "Don't Californicate Washington" appeared. It didn't help that many of them used umbrellas and most of them badmouthed the climate. Damn furriners.

Many went home when Boeing had a big layoff in I think 1968. This caused a huge exodus to California, such that some wiseacre erected a billboard on the highway south out of town that said, "Will the last person in Seattle please turn out the lights."

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One blogger posted a hypothetical conversation between a newly-independent Texas and the U.S.:

The blogger left out:

quote:
You're sovereign now. Build your own fucking wall.

My forecast is that if Texas did secede, it would end up a battleground / forward operating base for Mexican drug cartels. Texas will discover it cannot control its borders without federal alphabet soup (INS/DEA/ATF/DHS/CPB) and they'll either grovel back to the USA or end up as the 32nd state of Mexico - whatever it takes to get back into NAFTA.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
...(Of course, that could be easily solved if the #BCexit people get any footing--every so often there are rumblings from BC to join the US.)...

No, no, no, no, no. That's Alberta's wet dream. British Columbia would love to join Washington, Oregon, and at least half of California, but NOT the USA. #Cascadia

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

From memory, there's at least 1 small piece of land on the shores of a Great Lake which is US territory but with no land connection save through Canada. Due to an apparent inability to read a map there is at least 1 parallel here now in local government - North Epping remains a part of Hornby Council with no road connection except through areas now excised from Hornsby and moved to Parramatta.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Well, truth be known, there is a movement in Eastern Washington and parts of Northern Idaho to secede and form their own state. Regions that would be invited to join would include parts of BC and even Western Montana.

The name would be Cascadia.

Problem is we have no real industry to support the new state. Most of the Gold and Silver has already been mind (by those Californians). We do have a few nuclear reactors that are being mothballed.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
From memory, there's at least 1 small piece of land on the shores of a Great Lake which is US territory but with no land connection save through Canada. Due to an apparent inability to read a map there is at least 1 parallel here now in local government - North Epping remains a part of Hornby Council with no road connection except through areas now excised from Hornsby and moved to Parramatta.

There's also a little piece on Lake of the Woods. A little piece of land north of the 49th parallel of latitude. Called Northwest Angle. I canoed the area in 1973 (I hate to admit it was so long ago. We didn't need passports or worry about the border in these waters in those days.

There's also Point Bob which is a little piece of Tsawwassen Peninsula, basically in Vancouver BC.

The most interesting on (to me) is the Akwesasne Nation which is in both Canada and the USA. There have been a series of interesting disputes about the border. The reserve*/reservation** considers itself one community.

*reserve - term used in Canada
**reservation - term used in USA

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The Northwest Angle could be what was in the back of my mind. Never been there but it sounds interesting.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:

For my part, I would regret losing Hawaii far more than losing Alaska.

Having been annexed in an illegal coup, Hawai'i might actually have a case to make in the international arena if it had the will for it.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

The most interesting on (to me) is the Akwesasne Nation which is in both Canada and the USA. There have been a series of interesting disputes about the border. The reserve*/reservation** considers itself one community.

Indeed, and one community that is a part of neither Canada nor the US. The Mohawk have never recognized the border which bisects their lands and, as you point out, it's been a source of strife. Jay's Treaty is supposed to protect their mobility but there have still been perennial issues with crossings, and non-recognition of Haudenosaunee passports.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
Having been annexed in an illegal coup, Hawai'i might actually have a case to make in the international arena if it had the will for it.

Yes, or perhaps get the sovereign nation status that (some) mainland indigenous groups have.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Knopwood

There are other first nations that cross the Canada/US boarder. The one that I am aware of is the Niitsitapi a.k.a Blackfoot Nation. I have worked with several of them. Some of them say my last name is common in the confederation to the north of the the border, but from what I have found I do not think I am directly related. Could have been from a Hudson Bay Company trader way back in the ether of time.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Raising the Hudson Bay Company and Hawaii prompts me to note that the HBC had at least one trading post in the Hawaiian Islands, and also at the mouth of the Columbia River.

I don't know if it is true, but I was told that the USA had designs on New Zealand after swallowing up Hawaii and the Philippines.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Can't speak about New Zealand. Cook actually established trading posts in Hawaii. That is one reason why the Union Jack is included in the Hawaiian flag--the only non commonwealth state with the Union Jack, I think.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Well, truth be known, there is a movement in Eastern Washington and parts of Northern Idaho to secede and form their own state. Regions that would be invited to join would include parts of BC and even Western Montana.

The name would be Cascadia.

Problem is we have no real industry to support the new state. Most of the Gold and Silver has already been mind (by those Californians). We do have a few nuclear reactors that are being mothballed.

Given the giant overdue earthquake looming over the Cascadian fault, you might want to stick with the rest of the country so they can help pay for rebuilding.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't know if it is true, but I was told that the USA had designs on New Zealand after swallowing up Hawaii and the Philippines.

Fascinating, I've never heard that (which doesn't mean it's not accurate - I'm not an historian).
About when would this have been? Do you have anymore information about it?

When I read SIexit in the thread title it reminded me of a long running joke here(in the South Island at least) that we cut the Cook Strait
power cable that runs between New Zealand's two main islands and, at the time was sending power generated in the South Island to the North. Given that something like three quarters of the population lives in the North (poor things [Biased]

), it would never have been viable.

Besides, as Lamb Chopped alludes to for Cascadia we would have been totally stuffed after the Christchurch earthquakes.

Huia

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
...(Of course, that could be easily solved if the #BCexit people get any footing--every so often there are rumblings from BC to join the US.)...
No, no, no, no, no. That's Alberta's wet dream. British Columbia would love to join Washington, Oregon, and at least half of California, but NOT the USA. #Cascadia

The Cascadia "movement" even has a flag.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Thanks for that Cascadia link, Al Elulia. Not sure if, here in San Francisco, I'm in a part of N. Calif. that they want. If so, I think I could cope with increased regional identity (I already identify as West Coast, N. Calif., and San Franciscan.) I might cope if the region became a state. But I don't want to secede from the US. (Not sure if the Cascadia movement wants that.)

Don't think I want the proposed State of Jefferson (Wikipedia). I gather that some in that movement can be a bit...squirrely. (Kind of like the folks who took over part of that wildlife refuge in Oregon.) There are folks like that in parts of the Pacific Northwest, too, but I don't know if they're in the Cascadia movement.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
...(Of course, that could be easily solved if the #BCexit people get any footing--every so often there are rumblings from BC to join the US.)...
No, no, no, no, no. That's Alberta's wet dream. British Columbia would love to join Washington, Oregon, and at least half of California, but NOT the USA. #Cascadia

We even have our own flag ready (see my Avatar!)

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

To be semi-serious....

Any semi-intelligent reading of history will show that national boundaries are not set in concrete. Nations come, grow, change shape, decline and vanish from sight. Who today knows where Prussia used to be? And yet just over 100 years ago it was a major player in Europe. Look at how Poland has changed shape over the years. Look (if you can) for where the mighty state of Burgundy once was. Consider how many times the borders between Germany and France have shifted in the last 150 years.

The idea that the USA will stay as it is for ever and ever is a nonsense. At some point, it will probably fracture. The separation of Texas seems a quite plausible scenario. If that were to happen, there is no way to know what else may follow - just as no-one knows for sure how the rest of Europe is going to look after a UK withdrawal from the EU.

The same applies for Canada. It is highly possible that in 50 years' time, the map of North America may look drastically different from what we see today. (Shame I won't be around to see it!)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0