What USA state is more likely to separate?

Question

Which one of these American states is more likely to go independent?

abc3643 · Accepted Answer

None because separation is secession and that is illegal. This was established during the Civil War; when a state joins the Union, that is permanent.

If I was President, the Civil War ends very quickly.

My attitude toward seceding states can be summarized like this: You decide you are in rebellion and a separate nation? Fine. Then I, as President, get to use the full force of the United States military against you. And since we have no weapons treaties with you, we can kill you with whatever we want and have and in the most expeditious fashion.

However, I'd be both more more merciful and formal than that.

I, as President, would authorize and sign executive orders to cease and desist. My executive orders would be akin to what Eisenhower did 67 years ago.

First, you issue an Executive Proclamation which is the President formally saying s/he recognizes and identifies unlawful behavior. Such a proclamation gives time to the parties involved to stop their illegal actions.

If the illegal actions are stopped, then an Executive Order ensues authorizing the complete use all military forces of the United States.

Eisenhower was a very good President. Being a military man from West Point, he knew to be diplomatic and formal, but also be clear and not fuck around.

Mine would be similar to Eisenhower's:

===

WHEREAS on [date], I issued Proclamation No. [#] reading in part as follows:

[contents in the earlier proclamation identifying the illegal action; in short, rebeliion]

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the United States, including [relevant sections] of the United States Code, It is hereby ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of Defense to order into the active military service of the United States as he may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Order, any or all of the units of the National Guard of the United States and of the Air National Guard of the United States within the [seceding states] to serve in the active military service of the United States for an indefinite period and until relieved by appropriate orders.

SECTION. 2. The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to take all appropriate steps to enforce the suppression of rebellion and restore the full authority of the United States. In carrying out the provisions of this section, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use the units, and members thereof, ordered into the active military service of the United States pursuant to Section 1 of this Order.

SECTION. 3. In furtherance of the enforcement of the aforementioned orders, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use such of the armed forces of the United States as he may deem necessary including all available weaponry and supporting intelligence and defensive systems.

SECTION 4. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to delegate to the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, or both, any of the authority conferred upon him by this Order.

SECTION 5. The Department of Homeland Security is now subservient to the Department of Defense until relieved by appropriate orders.

SIGNED

[President Me]
THE WHITE HOUSE
[date]

===

I'd have a similar proclamation / executive order establishing martial law in the seceding states. Lincoln did something similar during the Civil War with Executive Proclamations 113.

======

Now, I want to be clear about something else. I would not fuck around.

I would do the modern equivalent of what the Truman Administration did just before the atomic bomb droppings: The Truman Administration dropped leaflets over Japan warning the people to surrender to save their lives. Even after dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, they sent new leaflets saying they would do it again until the war ended. In short, they said: If you want to live, evacuate the cities and anywhere of military value and surrender ASAP.

I have no problems whatsoever killing traitors. As far as I am concerned, their executions should be carried out live and broadcast on YouTube for the world and history to see that you do not fuck with the United States because, if you piss us off enough, we will find you and kill you. Just like what happened to Osama bin Laden.

Dargil · Accepted Answer

Tennessee or Texas. Not the  entire  Confederacy because of Leftist city-states like Atlanta, Memphis, Miami, Raleigh/Durham, New Orleans metro areas and others. When the split happens, they will be carved out. The American Republic will have a much lower population that the Socialist States of America but a stronger military and a patriotic, ethnically mixed, largely Christian population, which will isolate China and well re-industrialize. Yes, it will become more isolationist but also well armed.

TsundereMatrix · Accepted Answer

I’m Canadian but I have many American friends and many of them live in the south. If America stayed a democratic country I would say the southern states would leave. Years ago I heard Minnesota wanted to join Canada though. I don’t know if it’s true but with them being a liberal state I wouldn’t doubt if it were true.

Breanna_nonbinary · Accepted Answer

I would have to say none of them since it’s not legal.

razelove · Answer

I don't think any of them. The trade that rural areas rely on is too tied to cities and the ports/interstates that intersect there. There is a lot of friction, or outright hate and discontent between cities and rural.

Cities starve without rural, and rural areas don't get material the factories they have produce without the supply lines cities facilitate. I've seen the farm to factory progression of moving up in income for families out in the boonies for some jobs that I've had. It's advantageous for manufacturing too as they can buy gigantic plots of land for cheap, rail spurs, whatever they need. The local towns and counties will help to get those tax dollars too.

It's a fantasy to think the rural area will produce enough to feed the factory though, even if it's a food processing plant.

NaultD · Answer

None.

There will be one "if you surrender now you'll still get your social security check at retirement" that will be the end of that rebellious faction.

There will be zero attempt of actually moment of sovereignty. Like connecting with every country on the planet saying "we're a free independent country from USA call us to do trade" with every country saying they left that call on voice mail.

You'd wish to be haiti badass but you ain't that cool. It still cost 150 million francs. That was only paid off till the 1947 since 1825.

So there isn't a way to separate from the usa. Unless you take over it all to extension.

monorprise · Answer

Ironyly a lot of states are connected. While Alaska and Hawaii might be alone in leaving.

If Texas were to leave its almost certant that Oklahoma and certainly most of the south and much west would want to go with them.

I can see Californian skipping out but not Vermont or new Hampshire going anywhere without their neighbors and New Hampshire and Maine don't trust Massachusetts.

strateguy632 · Answer

I recommend border states repeat what texas did. New mexico colorado too.

Put up border barbed wire.

When federal misused authority over state, that day secede from bad federal. Texas shoulda done already but they waited because trump will win.

beefcakebradybatson · Answer

Texas was a nation from 1836-1845, and behaves like another country (indeed, like a separate SPECIE!!!) today. Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Florida (whose Governor , Ron DeFASCIST, is 46 today) and another couple of states should be kicked out of the U. S. and form The Goober States of America !!!

DryGermanGuy · Answer

None of them. Secession fantasies are exactly that, fantasies.

Ez-Bri-Z_v2 · Answer

California MIGHT be ok but they won't secede. Texas can't even figure out it's power grid. Basically the answer is none of them, mostly because they can't, but also cause none of them are that self sufficient.

Jamie05rhs · Answer

The only one really able to is Texas. Although California could, but they don't want to. They have zero incentive to do so.

paledreams · Answer

Georgia always seem to give off weird vibes via Columbus yet I'm biased because I'm not even American I just remember an alternative folk online who was non political yet seemed fruity lol 😆 😂

DrPepper12 · Answer

It's ALWAYS South Carolina causing the most trouble.

LazerMan · Answer

I hear great fire in hawaii and government no help i guess it be leave first

AviatorTom · Answer

No state is likely to leave. Theoretically, Texas was an independent country once, and could become one again.

Kingofkings1992 · Answer

I’d say Texas is probably the most independent state

OlderAndWiser · Answer

Not gonna happen!

zagor · Answer

None of them. But of these, I suppose Hawaii. TX and CA ain't goin' nowhere.

RebelinSteel · Answer

None of them.

msc545 · Answer

Hopefully Texas - good riddance.

Jejdjdejwifujejwdi · Answer

I wish California would.

Anonymous · Answer

God bless Texas 🇨🇱✝️🇨🇱

What USA state is more likely to separate?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said