the shortest civil war in the history of civil wars...or a peaceful resolution.
the conditions just aren't the same now as in 1860. Now I don't think any large segment of the military stationed in California would support the new secessionist government and its doubtful even local National Guard units would.
You'd have to give more context. In this situation has the Federal Government done something to seriously antagonize Californians? Because if its just California's state government seceding because they don't like the Federal Government they wouldn't get far.
Originally posted by Omega VisionGovernment and civillians
the shortest civil war in the history of civil wars...or a peaceful resolution.the conditions just aren't the same now as in 1860. Now I don't think any large segment of the military stationed in California would support the new secessionist government and its doubtful even local National Guard units would.
You'd have to give more context. In this situation has the Federal Government done something to seriously antagonize Californians? Because if its just California's state government seceding because they don't like the Federal Government they wouldn't get far.
The supreme court of Canada has ruled on this issue with regard to Quebec. I'm not sure what domestic American law would be, but here is the court's reasoning on international law:
Rights to secede under international law and self-determinationThe answer to the second question, which concerned Quebec's right under international law to secede, gave the opinion that the international law on secession was not applicable to the situation of Quebec. The court pointed out that international law "does not specifically grant component parts of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their 'parent' state."
The Supreme Court of Canada's opinion stated that the right of a people to self determination was expected to be exercised within the framework of existing states, by negotiation, for example. Such a right could only be exercised unilaterally under certain circumstances, under current international law. The court held that:
[quote]The various international documents that support the existence of a people's right to self-determination also contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to an existing state's territorial integrity or the stability of relations between sovereign states.
and that
A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its own internal arrangements, is entitled to the protection under international law of its territorial integrity.
The court stated in its opinion that under international law, the right to secede was meant for peoples under a colonial rule or foreign occupation. Otherwise, so long as a people has the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within an existing nation state, there is no right to secede unilaterally.
For close to 40 of the last 50 years, the Prime Minister of Canada has been a Quebecer. During this period, Quebecers have held from time to time all the most important positions in the federal Cabinet. During the 8 years prior to June 1997, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons were both Quebecers. At present, the Right Honourable Chief Justice and two other members of the Court, the Chief of Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian ambassador to the United States, not to mention the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, are all Quebecers. The international achievements of Quebecers in most fields of human endeavour are too numerous to list. Since the dynamism of the Quebec people has been directed toward the business sector, it has been clearly successful in Quebec, the rest of Canada and abroad.
The Supreme Court further stated that: Quebec could not, despite a clear referendum result, purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties to the federation. The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in Canada as a whole.[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_re_Secession_of_Quebec
on those grounds, California would have little legal ground for secession barring some type of referendum and negotiations with the other members of the American government.
Re: what would happen if California decided they wanted to seceed?
Originally posted by Colossus-Big CCalirfornia will go hang with Hawaii. Alaska can come too.
what will happen?