By Nathan Barton
The LA Times has said it, so it must be so. Right? In a story, they have said that California “can’t” secede.
The columnist gives four or five reasons:
a. California would have to “win the ensuing civil war.”
b. Congress would have to “kiss California good-bye.”
c. There is no procedure for secession in the US Constitution.
d. The Civil War [1861-1865] determined that the union is “indivisible.”
e. A constitutional amendment is the longest of long shots.
Well! The column states that Trump is an evil man and his administration is a threat to the civil rights of all Californians. It goes on to list a whole bunch of things where the other Forty-Nine States are out of step with that bastion of human liberty called California: global warming, immigration, firearms, marijuana, and ObummerCard are addressed. However, the subtext here is that (since it is impossible for California to secede) the rest of the nation must change to go along with California (or, presumably) allow California to be different on all these things.
Personally, I think the article is garbage, on each of these five things.
Let’s look briefly:
a. What makes this arrogant stuck-up goof think that most of the other states (if indeed ANY of the other states) would be willing to shed a single drop of blood in a new “War Between the States” to keep California from leaving? Not saying that power-mad and power-hungry politicos in DC and other states wouldn’t be willing to shed OTHER people’s blood to keep 55 million people and 6.5 trillion (rapidly-devaluing) dollars of economic activity under the control of DC, but I suspect there would be less support across the other Forty-Nine for keeping CA in the “Union” than for the wars in Afghanistan and Syria. (And I’m not even going to address whether DC would have the guts to do it?) Now, a civil war IN California might be a possibility (see below).
b. I don’t think that there are going to be a majority in Congress willing to kiss California except for the real perverts. For anything. Those most upset will probably be the GOP types who got elected from those few districts in California which are red. The attitude of most would be “Don’t let the door hit you as you go out.” Actually, the major concern in Congress might be having to deal with California after it becomes a third-world failed state and begs to come back – or the migrants start streaming even MORE rapidly out of California to elsewhere.
c. There doesn’t need to be a “constitutional procedure” to secede, as it is included in the Tenth Amendment. Remember that? “All powers not …” That, legally, including the power (not the “right”) to leave. Provided, of course, that you can find the military power to support your decision.
d. The entire War Between the States simply proved that tyrants sometimes do win: there was no legal attempt to deny the right of states to secede, and in fact, Congress’s mandating that the former members of the Confederate States of America had to be “readmitted” to the (“new, improved”) Union was de facto evidence that even the Radical Republican ruled Congress DID recognize that the eleven states had withdrawn from the Union: HAD seceded. But, being the proto-Tranzis that they were, they figured (correctly) that imperialism would allow that secession to be rendered null and void.
e. Therefore, there is no need for a constitutional amendment to allow California (or any OTHER state) to secede. BUT if there were, I suspect that the required number of votes, in both Congress AND of the Fifty States would not be very hard to obtain. (One commentator on this subject made the mistaken claim that it would require the equivalent of a constitutional amendment (two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the States), but did not address that high probability that a LOT of Congress and a LOT of states would like to see California go away.) And the more corrupt and obnoxious California becomes, the more likely people might even pass the hat to donate for California to go away.
Now, I admit, this would not be entirely painless, After all, California IS about one-sixth of the Fifty States’ economy, and there are a LOT of things which come from there. It is unlikely that California would quickly join either NAFTA or the TPP – even if we pretend that either of those are really “free trade” pacts. So all those fruits and veggies and nuts (the real ones, not the people) would almost certain have significant export duties imposed on them by California to both punish the evil Forty-Nine AND to replace the federal spending that sustains much of California’s economy. And there are a few goods still manufactured in California – and no, I do NOT consider Hollywood to be a reason for keeping the state inside a free-trade zone, any more than I do wine. Indeed, Hollywood is a very strong argument AGAINST trying to get California to stay one of the Fifty States. (And as someone pointed out to me, remember that once upon a time, places like Cuba and Venezuela were once major exporters of food, but now require vast imports of the stuff. Any bets that an independent and socialist California wouldn’t turn into the same sort of mess?)
But more important, we would lose direct access to the manufactories of China, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan. Seattle is unlikely to adequately make up for losing Oakland, Long Beach, and San Diego. And don’t even talk about Acapulco and whatever other ports Mexico has – or their rail system. Losing that direct access would hurt: it would be expensive, and a royal inconvenience. But the same thing would happen if the Big One hit California – and if California is “on its own” then we would not be OBLIGATED to provide post-disaster welfare. Definitely a silver lining, I think.
No doubt many of us would miss the vast national parks and other scenic wonders of California, but it is a worthwhile trade, as far as I’m concerned. As for being able to fly to friendly countries (like Taiwan and Japan and the Philippines), Las Vegas, Phoenix, and SeaTac are far better places to go through than SFO and LAX.
But the problem is that there are a lot of people in California that really do NOT want to leave the Union (well, what we have left of the Union) and so the real civil war might very well be INSIDE California. Given the general liberal attitude towards firearms, military training, and reality, I suspect that the neo-Cons, even if DC did not support them, would quickly defeat the secession forces. Not that it wouldn’t still be a bloody mess. But I really don’t think that the likely future rulers of an independent California have either the knowledge or the will to even do as well as the bottom rung of socialist dictators.
Now, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Jerry Brown, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer’s successor, and the rest of the statists in Sacramento can put together a military force able to prevent the state’s “Unionists” from overthrowing the Democrat government and establishing a military dictatorship able to request (and support) a federal “intervention” force a la Iraq and Afghanistan. But would DC really (a) have the guts, and (b) want California back enough to do it?
The other alternative would be one that I have referred to in the past; that the neo-Cons and others in several areas of California will secede from the seceded state – perhaps (probably?) succeeding as West Virginia did and East Tennessee and Cetral Texas did not. Would San Diego, perhaps with the Imperial Valley and Orange County, secede and gain admission to the Union? Or would Jefferson state (with or without its Oregon counties) also be able to secede, either on its own or perhaps by joining Nevada (would the unions in Reno be willing to be traded?)?
Fun as it is to speculate, there is no way to predict just WHAT the insane politicians in Sacramento or DC – or for that matter in Eugene or Reno or wherever – will do.
But this commentary has a serious side to it. What do lovers of liberty do if this happens? Or if ANY sort of stupid political decisions result in speeding up the process of Final Collapse?
Be prepared: not just supplies and equipment, but the mindset, the worldview, that you need to deal with the hideous “benefits” of the synergistic effects of tyranny and chaos. Picture the Rodney King riots on a very large scale, or the Ferguson “protests” times ten. But more than equipment and supplies and your own mental (and physical) preparation, seek voluntary alliances; friendships and brotherhood with those who think like you and are also prepared and willing to fight for their liberty as you are. And be prepared to MOVE.
Mama’s Note: If actually motivated by any of this, the best way to survive might be to MOVE NOW. If you (anybody “you”) think you’ll have time and opportunity to move after the war gets going, you may be surprised. If you think you can move to a safer place and make contacts, friendships and join mutual support groups AFTER the war starts, I can pretty much guarantee you’ll fail. Just why should any of them trust you at that point?
Move now. Make friends and allies now. Get your preparations in place in the safer zones now. Arm and train yourself and your family, friends, in solid, tactical self defense – NOW. You probably won’t have any chance to do it once the shooting starts.
This is nothing new, of course. But it does point out that what many of us have been doing for a long is still necessary. Because nothing is getting better.