Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt every statd have a secessionist movement?

Not... Really? I mean, I suppose if you look, there's probably some random crazies just about anywhere who think that they should succeed and be their own country. But a bunch of random crazies does not in my mind constitute a secessionist movement anymore than a bunch of sovereign citizen gun nuts who like to play army in the woods constitute a militia.

The only ones that come to mind as remotely "seriously" are:

- Hawaii
- Texas
- Cascadia (NW US)
- New Vermont

Why do you think the Texas one is serious? There aren't enough secesh to fill a Denny's bathroom here. I seem to yell at three of them on a daily basis on a gun board (I estimate that to be more than half their number).

The members of La Raza outnumber them by about 300 to 1.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why do you think the Texas one is serious? There aren't enough secesh to fill a Denny's bathroom here. I seem to yell at three of them on a daily basis on a gun board (I estimate that to be more than half their number).

The members of La Raza outnumber them by about 300 to 1.

I didn't mean the State as a whole. Just that those are the four instances I can think off that have a "serious" group supporting the movement. I don't think that any of those four movements will have any success either.

Do the efforts to split CA into 2 states count? Because that is actually a pretty good idea.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Do the efforts to split CA into 2 states count? Because that is actually a pretty good idea.

What are those: Hipsterland and Norte Mexico?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Do the efforts to split CA into 2 states count? Because that is actually a pretty good idea.

What are those: Hipsterland and Norte Mexico?

There are several proposals. One splits it between the coast and the inland areas, another splits it about 80 miles north of LA. I like the latter as it cuts off LA from the rest.

Having lived in both Hipsterland and Norte Mexico I can safely say those are two completely different states.

of course if you separate them, why should Hipsterland keep shipping all its water to the Norte Mexico desert?

I would not cry if the area dried up.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would not cry if the area dried up.

But what would you and all the other SoCal haters have to gripe about?

We have a movement like that here in NY, but to kick the city out of the state/have the city secede. Sometimes that includes Long Island, sometimes not.

Viva la Long island?

 dusara217 wrote:
This wasn't really the fault of the US (disease did the Kingdom of Hawaii in, just like so many other Native nations; the US just happened to be in a position to take advantage of Hawaii's weakness), but the Native Hawaiians have become a minority through a combination of plague and immigration (immigration still is a factor, as you said, but Hawaiians would likely number in the tens of millions today, had they not been devastated during the 19th Century).

Highly doubtful, as that would make it one of the (if not the) most densely populated countries in the world. Having spent most of my years in just such a country (Taiwan: 23 million, 35k km2 - all other contenders are pretty much city-states), I'll tell you with some confidence that Hawaii is way too small to hold "tens of millions" without some sci-fi arcology.

Though surprisingly, Taiwan is still mostly forested (actually very mountainous, just like Hawaii).

There's no way their population was 1 million. Today with modern production and construction, Hawaii has a population of 1.4 million. I highly doubt there were that many people living on the island in the 18th century (before small pox ravaged the local population). At the start of the 19th century, the population of England, Scotland, and Wales was just over 1 million, and the Isle of Britain has a land mass of 80,000 sq Miles, 8x that of Hawaii.

 LordofHats wrote:
There's no way their population was 1 million. Today with modern production and construction, Hawaii has a population of 1.4 million. I highly doubt there were that many people living on the island in the 18th century (before small pox ravaged the local population). At the start of the 19th century, the population of England, Scotland, and Wales was just over 1 million, and the Isle of Britain has a land mass of 80,000 sq Miles, 8x that of Hawaii.

A quick google search reveals that the population of Britain in 1801 was around 10 million. Even the population during the Middle Ages was well over a million, with Europe having around 100 million total.

Hawaii, however, is not very suitable for agriculture so I'm somewhat skeptical of a 1 million figure. If I'm not mistaken, the population is still debated, ranging from a low of 100k to a million.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems to me that if Hawaii did not voluntarily enter the union they are in no way legally or morally bound to remain a member. However I think it is a moot point. It is unlikely that it would even be possible to arrange a fair plebiscite on the matter now, and even if done the vote would most likely be to remain a member.

The State of Hawaii willingly entered the Union, at the behest of the voters. Hawaii's annexation as a territory isn't really all that different then most other US states west of the Louisiana Purchase. They were all originally incorporated at gun/cannon point as territories. Eventually the citizens of the territories decided they wanted to be states, voted for it, and Congress passed bills that enacted it. Hawaii is no different. The citizens of the territory wished to become a state, and did.

As I understand it, the annexation in the 1800's was at the behest of white land owners. The Native Hawaiins wanted nothing to do with being part of the U.S.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HAWAII/hawaii.php


About the vote, from the linked article:

"Following WW2, Hawaii was placed on the list of non self-governing territories by the United Nations, with the United States as trustee, under Article 73. Under the UN charter, the status of a territory can only be changed by a special vote, called a plebiscite, held among the inhabitants of the territory. That plebiscite is required to have three choices on the ballot. The first choice is to become a part of the trustee nation. In Hawaii's case that meant to become a state. The second choice was to remain a territory. And the third choice, required by the UN Charter, was the option for independence. For Hawaii, that meant no longer being a territory of the United States and returning to being an independent sovereign nation.

In 1959 Hawaii's plebiscite vote was held, and again, the United States government bent the rules. The plebiscite ballot only had the choice between statehood and remaining a territory. No option for independence appeared on the ballot as was required under the UN charter. Cheated out of their independence yet again, Hawaiians voted for the lesser of two evils and became the 50th state."

Didn't we already have a war about this sort of thing? I think it was pretty much decided by said war that states can't leave the Union.
And something that happened over a hundred years ago isn't cause for calling out for independence. It's been a state for a while. "Occupation" is an outright lie.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Didn't we already have a war about this sort of thing? I think it was pretty much decided by said war that states can't leave the Union.
And something that happened over a hundred years ago isn't cause for calling out for independence. It's been a state for a while. "Occupation" is an outright lie.

It would probably be crippling for Hawaii to gain it's indepenence now, since the rest of the country is so tightly bound into it's fabric.

 EngulfedObject wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
There's no way their population was 1 million. Today with modern production and construction, Hawaii has a population of 1.4 million. I highly doubt there were that many people living on the island in the 18th century (before small pox ravaged the local population). At the start of the 19th century, the population of England, Scotland, and Wales was just over 1 million, and the Isle of Britain has a land mass of 80,000 sq Miles, 8x that of Hawaii.

A quick google search reveals that the population of Britain in 1801 was around 10 million. Even the population during the Middle Ages was well over a million, with Europe having around 100 million total.

Yes I think I missed the fine print on the chart I found XD

Hawaii, however, is not very suitable for agriculture so I'm somewhat skeptical of a 1 million figure. If I'm not mistaken, the population is still debated, ranging from a low of 100k to a million.

Well if Britain could boast a 10 mil pop, then 1 mil on Hawaii is a lot less far fetched. At this point we're hitting the same problem we hit with most Pre-Columbian contact populations, no one can really agree on a number and there honestly isn't much you can do to hazard a guess by compare and contrast with other regions.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Didn't we already have a war about this sort of thing? I think it was pretty much decided by said war that states can't leave the Union.
And something that happened over a hundred years ago isn't cause for calling out for independence. It's been a state for a while. "Occupation" is an outright lie.

Exactly. As noted, the case of Lee vs. Grant decided this once and for all.

Having had lived in Texas for some 20 years, secession supporters are the most vocal of minorities you will ever meet.

Also never give up Hawaii.

Manifest Destiny.

It is the Emper-I mean it is Gods will that America controls all land west of the Mississippi.

Indeed. Time to go northwest. Moose are worthy allies and can protect the maple reserves. Onto Vancouver!