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.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Where is the part where "the Union" is giving permission?

In the OP, which you clearly didn't read, hence the "classic Frazz".

A hypothetical question is being asked here. Would you vote to allow Hawaii the chance to secede? Yes, I would.

 CptJake wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).

When did Puerto Rico secede?

They had the option to secede a few years ago- they voted to remain a Commonwealth.

i would vote to commence Arclight missions minutely if they tried until they understood the error of their ways.


there is no constitutional method to secede. it would need a Constitutional Amendment, not some half ass local vote.

What's the big deal with Hawaii wanting to secede ?

I'm not American, so I probably can't understand, but if they want to, leave them be.

 LethalShade wrote:
What's the big deal with Hawaii wanting to secede ?

I'm not American, so I probably can't understand, but if they want to, leave them be.

the issue is the US had the bloodiest war in its history over the topic. secesh lost. never again.

 LethalShade wrote:
What's the big deal with Hawaii wanting to secede ?

There really isn't a deal, big or otherwise; the vast majority have no interest in secession.

 notprop wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
I am on the side of 'reap the benefits of statehood for the better part of a century so you are stuck with us' camp.

Yeah, losing roughly 90% of the indigenous population in the first few decades of US sovereignty was quite the reaping.

That's kind of obfuscating the issue. Today, and as long as you or I have been alive, Hawaii is a full fledged state, with full legal rights for all of its citizens. Furthermore, they are consistently on the list of states which receive a larger portion of the federal budget than they contribute.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm given to understand that the naval military advantage controlling Hawaii gave the US made the investment worthwhile, at one point, but I'm not sure how important naval superiority remains in the modern era. (By not sure, I mean 'I don't know,' not 'I am claiming it is not important.)

I guess, on the one hand, if a vote would show a clear consensus, I think it seems correct to grant independence. (Although I think the number of non-natives who are legal state residents, even native residents, would be high enough to sway any vote unequivocally in favor of statehood, so it's kind of a moot point.) On the other hand, the US has established, with bloody precedent, that the Union is, as the saying goes, indivisible.

Big talk. They wont walk.

They would never want to be their own nation, that would mean the end of its membership in the first world, and third world status within a decade. Individuals and leadership and the elite would no doubt benefit from it, pocketing whatever income the country might have, but in general it will be a demographic and economic catastrophe for the Hawaiian islands.

The cost of living there is pretty high to begin with. I wonder what it would soar to if Hawaii went independent:

http://www.payscale.com/cost-of-living-calculator/Hawaii-Honolulu

 kronk wrote:
I don't want a new flag.

If we have to give up Hawaii, let's take something else.

Hey Scotland! Are your needs being met with your current relationship? Do you like to travel?

We have Disney World!

We have problems with England, but we're largely governed ourselves. It'd take more than Disney World to make us turn 'Murcan!

Herzlos wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I don't want a new flag.

If we have to give up Hawaii, let's take something else.

Hey Scotland! Are your needs being met with your current relationship? Do you like to travel?

We have Disney World!

We have problems with England, but we're largely governed ourselves. It'd take more than Disney World to make us turn 'Murcan!

The main reason is that the Scots value their second amendment too much to risk it in the name of such a merge.

A well regulated Chef Division, being necessary to the taste buds of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Haggis, shall not be infringed.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As Hawaii is the only American state to have the Union Jack on its state flag, then Hawaii is under British protection!

Those damn Yankees will pay for this insult to Britannia!

America: prepare to suffer the wrath of the classic two pronged attack!

1) The Royal Navy will blockade the Chesapeake, thus forcing the New England merchants to persuade President Madison to sue for peace.

2) 10,000 redcoats will march down from Canada and occupy Boston, thus cutting off New England from the rest of the USA

you have 48 hours to withdraw from Hawaii

No strongly worded letter to follow?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Sounds like a pretty similar situation as with the Soviet Union/Russian Empire and the Baltic states.

Prior to 1960 I'd definitely agree. But for the last 70 years Hawaii has had full statehood. We don't have concentration camps, segregation, or any bs Jim crow laws that prevent Native Hawaiians from participating in democratic political processes and I'm reluctant to to support a move for independence that amounts to "I have everything everyone else has but I think it would be better if I was independent cause reasons." They're not the former Soviet Bloc, or the Basque, or the Kurds, or even the Irish. If there was serious issues with marginalization or denied rights I'd be more sympathetic but I'm not finding anything to that effect. As a territory I think there'd be an argument too, as for me US Territories can only be legitimately held so long as the majority of population in the territory is okay with it, but Hawaii isn't a territory anymore.

Sure, Balts, like everyone else, suffered repression under the early days of the Soviet Union, but they were always full citizens with equal rights from the beginning. They were full Republics in the Soviet Union and had their own local governments made up of ethnic Balts. They also participated in the highest levels of federal government. All chairmen of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian. On the other hand, how many Hawaians have been governor of Hawaii?
And what about cultural rights? How many Hawaians still speak the Hawaian language? The US rule has practically destroyed Hawaian language and culture, and only 10% of the population is still actually Hawaian. You can argue all you want, but Russian occupation of the Baltics has been far less destructive for them than US occupation of Hawaii has been for the Hawaian people.

Of course, the similarity depends on what the Hawaian people want. If they actually want independence, then the situation is similar, but if they are fine with being part of the US, then it is not.

 LordofHats wrote:

The best thing would be a referendum, altough you might argue that in such a case, the amount of American immigrants vs native Hawaians would skew the outcome.

This is the other issue. As dirty as the past may be Native Hawaiians are a very small fraction of the State's population. I don't think letting less than 7% of the population dictate this issue is any better than annexing Hawaii in the first place. I suppose that forms a kind of catch 22 situation. Want to take over someone elses country? Just annex it and move in a bunch of your guys (well, in the case of Hawaii, import a metric gak ton of Asians)! But after 120 years the morality of it all seems to become a moot point. It doesn't really benefit anyone anymore.

I think the Independence movement vastly overestimates the UN there as well. The UN is never gonna back such a move. That kind of precedent would lead to virtually every state on the planet being dissolved cause I don't think any of us really got our current borders by being particularly nice in the past.

That is a very valid point. Most states, including the US and Russia, got their territory by conquering and subjugating other peoples, then settling their lands with your own people.
The problem is that the US is very hawkish about other countries doing the same things the US does. If the US did not constantly say to be all for freedom, democracy and self-determination, it would be a good argument. Now it makes the US look hypocritical. The US likes to pretend it is better than other nations (leader of "the free world" and all). If they really are, they should give Hawaians and other subjugated peoples a free choice. If not, they should stop their charade.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zaku212 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As Hawaii is the only American state to have the Union Jack on its state flag, then Hawaii is under British protection!

Those damn Yankees will pay for this insult to Britannia!

America: prepare to suffer the wrath of the classic two pronged attack!

1) The Royal Navy will blockade the Chesapeake, thus forcing the New England merchants to persuade President Madison to sue for peace.

2) 10,000 redcoats will march down from Canada and occupy Boston, thus cutting off New England from the rest of the USA

you have 48 hours to withdraw from Hawaii

No strongly worded letter to follow?

Word is that a letter won't be enough. A red line may have to be drawn.

We don't pretend.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Where is the part where "the Union" is giving permission?

In the OP, which you clearly didn't read, hence the "classic Frazz".

A hypothetical question is being asked here. Would you vote to allow Hawaii the chance to secede? Yes, I would.

 CptJake wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).

When did Puerto Rico secede?

They had the option to secede a few years ago- they voted to remain a Commonwealth.

i would vote to commence Arclight missions minutely if they tried until they understood the error of their ways.


there is no constitutional method to secede. it would need a Constitutional Amendment, not some half ass local vote.

Frazz, I've been looking at the House of Commons website (British government)

and there's no mention of a constitutional method that allowed a certain group of colonists to break away in 1776.

If Hawaii broke away from the USA, you guys could hardly take the moral high ground on this


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zaku212 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As Hawaii is the only American state to have the Union Jack on its state flag, then Hawaii is under British protection!

Those damn Yankees will pay for this insult to Britannia!

America: prepare to suffer the wrath of the classic two pronged attack!

1) The Royal Navy will blockade the Chesapeake, thus forcing the New England merchants to persuade President Madison to sue for peace.

2) 10,000 redcoats will march down from Canada and occupy Boston, thus cutting off New England from the rest of the USA

you have 48 hours to withdraw from Hawaii

No strongly worded letter to follow?

This is Britain you're talking about. We built an empire on the premise that letters were best sent via cannon ball

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Sounds like a pretty similar situation as with the Soviet Union/Russian Empire and the Baltic states.

Prior to 1960 I'd definitely agree. But for the last 70 years Hawaii has had full statehood. We don't have concentration camps, segregation, or any bs Jim crow laws that prevent Native Hawaiians from participating in democratic political processes and I'm reluctant to to support a move for independence that amounts to "I have everything everyone else has but I think it would be better if I was independent cause reasons." They're not the former Soviet Bloc, or the Basque, or the Kurds, or even the Irish. If there was serious issues with marginalization or denied rights I'd be more sympathetic but I'm not finding anything to that effect. As a territory I think there'd be an argument too, as for me US Territories can only be legitimately held so long as the majority of population in the territory is okay with it, but Hawaii isn't a territory anymore.

Sure, Balts, like everyone else, suffered repression under the early days of the Soviet Union, but they were always full citizens with equal rights from the beginning. They were full Republics in the Soviet Union and had their own local governments made up of ethnic Balts. They also participated in the highest levels of federal government. All chairmen of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian. On the other hand, how many Hawaians have been governor of Hawaii?
And what about cultural rights? How many Hawaians still speak the Hawaian language? The US rule has practically destroyed Hawaian language and culture, and only 10% of the population is still actually Hawaian. You can argue all you want, but Russian occupation of the Baltics has been far less destructive for them than US occupation of Hawaii has been for the Hawaian people.

Of course, the similarity depends on what the Hawaian people want. If they actually want independence, then the situation is similar, but if they are fine with being part of the US, then it is not.

 LordofHats wrote:

The best thing would be a referendum, altough you might argue that in such a case, the amount of American immigrants vs native Hawaians would skew the outcome.

This is the other issue. As dirty as the past may be Native Hawaiians are a very small fraction of the State's population. I don't think letting less than 7% of the population dictate this issue is any better than annexing Hawaii in the first place. I suppose that forms a kind of catch 22 situation. Want to take over someone elses country? Just annex it and move in a bunch of your guys (well, in the case of Hawaii, import a metric gak ton of Asians)! But after 120 years the morality of it all seems to become a moot point. It doesn't really benefit anyone anymore.

I think the Independence movement vastly overestimates the UN there as well. The UN is never gonna back such a move. That kind of precedent would lead to virtually every state on the planet being dissolved cause I don't think any of us really got our current borders by being particularly nice in the past.

That is a very valid point. Most states, including the US and Russia, got their territory by conquering and subjugating other peoples, then settling their lands with your own people.
The problem is that the US is very hawkish about other countries doing the same things the US does. If the US did not constantly say to be all for freedom, democracy and self-determination, it would be a good argument. Now it makes the US look hypocritical. The US likes to pretend it is better than other nations (leader of "the free world" and all). If they really are, they should give Hawaians and other subjugated peoples a free choice. If not, they should stop their charade.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zaku212 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As Hawaii is the only American state to have the Union Jack on its state flag, then Hawaii is under British protection!

Those damn Yankees will pay for this insult to Britannia!

America: prepare to suffer the wrath of the classic two pronged attack!

1) The Royal Navy will blockade the Chesapeake, thus forcing the New England merchants to persuade President Madison to sue for peace.

2) 10,000 redcoats will march down from Canada and occupy Boston, thus cutting off New England from the rest of the USA

you have 48 hours to withdraw from Hawaii

No strongly worded letter to follow?

Word is that a letter won't be enough. A red line may have to be drawn.

I remember what happened the last time an American president spoke about red lines...NOTHING

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Where is the part where "the Union" is giving permission?

In the OP, which you clearly didn't read, hence the "classic Frazz".

A hypothetical question is being asked here. Would you vote to allow Hawaii the chance to secede? Yes, I would.

 CptJake wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I'm all for giving Hawaii the choice to secede and form their own state (kind of like we did for Puerto Rico).

When did Puerto Rico secede?

They had the option to secede a few years ago- they voted to remain a Commonwealth.

i would vote to commence Arclight missions minutely if they tried until they understood the error of their ways.


there is no constitutional method to secede. it would need a Constitutional Amendment, not some half ass local vote.

Frazz, I've been looking at the House of Commons website (British government)

and there's no mention of a constitutional method that allowed a certain group of colonists to break away in 1776.

If Hawaii broke away from the USA, you guys could hardly take the moral high ground on this

You seem to forget that we've already had an attempt at this. It resulted in 620,000 dead Americans.

Afterwards the USSC rules that secession was not allowed by the Constitution. Even the silly fellows in Texas who keep claiming that they can break away whenever they want. Nope.

Ketara wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


Prior to 1960 I'd definitely agree. But for the last 70 years Hawaii has had full statehood. We don't have concentration camps, segregation, or any bs Jim crow laws that prevent Native Hawaiians from participating in democratic political processes and I'm reluctant to to support a move for independence that amounts to "I have everything everyone else has but I think it would be better if I was independent cause reasons."

That's interesting. Would you say then that the Scottish should have been denied their independence referendum, and that the Catalonians should be denied one?

I'd need more information. This kind of thing is definitely a case by case basis for me. The ramifications and consequences of ideology or unilateral action are too severe. I don't know jack about the Catalonians. For the Scotts I do remember the recent thread we had about the state of the United Kingdom, as well as the Scottish push for independence, but am uncertain where I would fall. I just don't know enough about how Scotland fits into UK politics to make a personal decision on the matter. Some of what I've heard makes it sound like the Scotts are just complaining about things that aren't real or that effect the English as well (London being a center focus of UK politics), and at other times I've read things that do sound like the Scottish are being marginalized (that thing about only the English getting to vote on certain things?). I'm just not knowledgeable enough to make a determination.

I do definitely feel though that no country can run itself or survive if it indulges every single bid of independence any minority group makes. It's nice to think that "if they want to go their own way, we should let them" and that might even be the morally just thing to do... But I just can't fathom any state operating that way and lasting for very long. It's a practice of self-destruction. Too a degree, reality dictates that just because you want to be your own country doesn't mean my country has to indulge you.

EDIT: And to be fair, as I've read more into this, the Hawaiian Independence movement is not purely about Full Independence. The majority of the groups I can find recognize that Hawaii is political and economically integrated into the United States. What most of them advocates is not full Sovereignty but rather a downgrade from Statehood to a kind of special Territory status where they'd still be part of the United States but have more independence from the Federal Government (and would cease to be the 'State of Hawaii').

I have explained to them the problems of seceding when the US army has a division here.

"we secede!"

Mr. M1 tank says "nope!"

I agree that technically the Civil War settled the issue, but this is human nature, this is democracy.

The founding fathers told London to take a hike. Who's to say in future that the American people won't decide to tear up the constitution and start again? Or individual states might go it alone?

You can't predict this.

It's unlikely that Hawaii would ever break away, but it's equally nonsense to say that it could never happen.

The founders were smart people, who knew better than anybody that the future is not set in stone, hence the genius of the 2/3rds clause to repeal or add an amendment.

indeed. thats why you need an amendment else it is M1 tank time.

 LordofHats wrote:

Ketara wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


Prior to 1960 I'd definitely agree. But for the last 70 years Hawaii has had full statehood. We don't have concentration camps, segregation, or any bs Jim crow laws that prevent Native Hawaiians from participating in democratic political processes and I'm reluctant to to support a move for independence that amounts to "I have everything everyone else has but I think it would be better if I was independent cause reasons."

That's interesting. Would you say then that the Scottish should have been denied their independence referendum, and that the Catalonians should be denied one?

I'd need more information. This kind of thing is definitely a case by case basis for me. The ramifications and consequences of ideology or unilateral action are too severe. I don't know jack about the Catalonians. For the Scotts I do remember the recent thread we had about the state of the United Kingdom, as well as the Scottish push for independence, but am uncertain where I would fall. I just don't know enough about how Scotland fits into UK politics to make a personal decision on the matter. Some of what I've heard makes it sound like the Scotts are just complaining about things that aren't real or that effect the English as well (London being a center focus of UK politics), and at other times I've read things that do sound like the Scottish are being marginalized (that thing about only the English getting to vote on certain things?). I'm just not knowledgeable enough to make a determination.

I do definitely feel though that no country can run itself or survive if it indulges every single bid of independence any minority group makes. It's nice to think that "if they want to go their own way, we should let them" and that might even be the morally just thing to do... But I just can't fathom any state operating that way and lasting for very long. It's a practice of self-destruction. Too a degree, reality dictates that just because you want to be your own country doesn't mean my country has to indulge you.

Well let me tell you this as a supporter and member of the Scottish independence movement.

I like Britain, the history, the culture etc etc, and I'll miss Britain when we leave. We're not oppressed in the sense that we're living in a dictatorship. We're a rich, 1st world country with a high standard of living and all the associated democratic rights etc etc

So why do I want to break away from the UK? For the same reason that people leave their home when their old enough and have their own lives.

It's as simple as that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I have explained to them the problems of seceding when the US army has a division here.

"we secede!"

Mr. M1 tank says "nope!"

And then Hawaii suddenly remembers it has a vast Russian or Chinese population and they appeal for help.

 Frazzled wrote:
indeed. thats why you need an amendment else it is M1 tank time.

No Army M1 tanks in Hawaii. The 25th has a Stryker BCT and an Infantry BCT there.

They can try to break away, but unless they have a very powerful Nation-state backer, they will not manage it. The federal government would simply not allow it without it coming to blows. There is too much at stake and the threat of balkanization if one US state managed it.

Alternatively, they could go the political route and get 2/3 Constitutional Majority, but I think everyone would see that path would lead to the dissolution of the Union into (arguably more) regionalism.

somebody else tried that.

 Easy E wrote:
They can try to break away, but unless they have a very powerful Nation-state backer, they will not manage it. The federal government would simply not allow it without it coming to blows. There is too much at stake and the threat of balkanization if one US state managed it.

Alternatively, they could go the political route and get 2/3 Constitutional Majority, but I think everyone would see that path would lead to the dissolution of the Union into (arguably more) regionalism.

But if large democratic movements sprung up and a majority wanted to break away, what could the USA do?

Invade to stop a peaceful democratic movement with majority support?

yes. ghost Lincoln would like to have a discussion with them after he wakes up ghost Chesty Puller to "secure" Oahu.

 Frazzled wrote:
yes. ghost Lincoln would like to have a discussion with them after he wakes up ghost Chesty Puller to "secure" Oahu.

Threads like this make me glad I started collecting a Confederate army for Civil War games

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
They can try to break away, but unless they have a very powerful Nation-state backer, they will not manage it. The federal government would simply not allow it without it coming to blows. There is too much at stake and the threat of balkanization if one US state managed it.

Alternatively, they could go the political route and get 2/3 Constitutional Majority, but I think everyone would see that path would lead to the dissolution of the Union into (arguably more) regionalism.

But if large democratic movements sprung up and a majority wanted to break away, what could the USA do?

Invade to stop a peaceful democratic movement with majority support?

I don't know. What did the British do in India?

Oh crap! You win.

Posts the text of the Supreme Court ruling that says "states can't leave without the consent of Congress" only to be followed by a page of "states can never leave, it's already decided".

Moments like these are the reason I treausure this place.

 d-usa wrote:
Posts the text of the Supreme Court ruling that says "states can't leave without the consent of Congress" only to be followed by a page of "states can never leave, it's already decided".

Moments like these are the reason I treausure this place.

We love you too.

 d-usa wrote:
Posts the text of the Supreme Court ruling that says "states can't leave without the consent of Congress" only to be followed by a page of "states can never leave, it's already decided".

Moments like these are the reason I treausure this place.

Too be fair, while that was the decision made by the Supreme Court (that Congress can consent to allow a state to leave), I'd actually question if that would be legal. Congress' powers don't really cover this (nothing in the Constitution does). Can Congress exercise a power that is not even touched in Constitution? Especially since White v Texas wasn't explicitly about Secession (it was about whether actions the actions taken by a secessionist government were binding), if this were ever to come up as a serious issue another Supreme Court case to specifically determine this would be prudent. Whether or not Congress can allow a state to leave the Union feels too much like a political question to me, and political questions are definitely outside the jurisdiction of the judiciary.