State Secession

[Truronian]

You suggest that seceding states should not take on any of the US debt. In that case were all fifty states to secede DC would be left with all the debt. An absurd scenario which highlights why it would be daft to allow states to secede without taking on a share of the US debt. You may not have intended your joke to undermine your own opiniont, but it did.

 

[duckstab]

And which "decisions" did the state government not take part in that absolve it of all responsibility? What if some of those decisions were taken when state legislatures still chose U.S. Senators? Or do they share in the responsibility for the actions of the Federal government because they either ratified the Constitution or joined the Union in the first place?

It's analogous to being married in a community property state like Texas. If I were to run up a huge credit card debt without my wife's permission, divorce her, and then die destitute, my creditors could still come after her. They might have to take her to court and a judge or jury might send them away empty-handed, but they would at least have some basis for their action.

 

[bhsup]

Guys, this thread wasn't to argue the merits or legality of secession. It was assumed in the OP that it was legal, done, and everybody was now holding hands and singing coca-cola harmony song. The only things left to figure out were the specifcs as laid out by the OP. Which...

1) should US military bases: D) The land reverts to the State. What the State chooses to do with it is entirely up to them. Most equipment that can easily be moved should probably be returned to the blue bellies. The remainder stays. By the way, this is only for FEDERAL bases, obviously. For example, those B-2s at Whiteman should clearly go to the federalies, but hey we're gonna keep those A-10s that are stationed there with the Missouri Air Guard.

2) Does the ownership of nuclear weapons that have been stockpiled within Exstatia: B) Remain with the US would be the idea option imho. New country would not have the procedures or safeguards in place to guarantee no accidents. Plus, do I really want the glorious Republic of Missouri to be a nuclear power? That's a helluva decision.

3) should members of the US armed forces who recognised Exstatia as their home state before secession: C) be given the option to continue serving or to be released from duty. However, that's basically their citizenship choice too. IF they choose to stay and serve in US armed forces, they cannot remain citizens of glorious Republic of Missouri.

4) which of the following options should those who had identified Exstatia as their home state before secession have: C) none of the above, they automatically lose US citizenship and all rights that go with it and are now solely citizens of the glorious Republic of Missouri. With the cavaet listed about for armed forces members, and the only reason that possible exemption exists is because they swore an oath to serve.

5) How much of the US's national debt should be transferred to Exstatia: D) I don't know that "assets" are sufficient. The debt encompasses so much more than just the assets. This is the diciest and I really don't have a good answer because I'm not an economist. Maybe the percentage of the national debt based on population but also taking into account average incomes? Really don't know.

6) How should Exstatia handle the sudden jump in unemployment (due to US government employees living within Exstatia being laid off) and the loss of federal money? It would take awhile to sort out, but obviously the previous responsibilities of the northern aggressors would now fall on the shoulders of the glorious Republic of Missouri. Also, we'll clearly need to bolster our defenses.

7) How should Exstatia's economy handle the loss of capital as investors and owners of fluid assets move their assets out of Exstatia into the US? Protectionism? In the specific case of the glorious Republic of Missouri, we'd need to reach out to the UK. The UK, having unfettered navigation rights up the Mississippi via the Treaty of Paris, could become our initial lifeline until we negotiate other trade agreements with the US and other nations. But I am curious why the assumption that we would lose businesses. You do not think they would stay out of a sense of loyalty?

8) How would Exstatia's relations with other US states changes? We would no longer really have relations with the individual States per se becaues the US Constitution forbids them from entering into treaties with foreign powers. The glorious Republic of Missouri would have to enter into negotiations with the Yankees to iron out border crossings, currency exchange, and so forth, just as it would with all other nations.

 

[Dachs]

The UK, having unfettered navigation rights up the Mississippi via the Treaty of Paris, could become our initial lifeline until we negotiate other trade agreements with the US and other nations.

Abrogated via one of several ways (take your pick).

In 1795, the US and Spain signed Pinckney's Treaty, which limited navigation on the Mississippi to Spain and the United States. This was back when Spain owned Louisiana, so those two countries were the only ones abutting the river.

In the negotiations surrounding the Treaty of Ghent, the British argued that the War of 1812 had annulled all prior Anglo-American treaties as a ploy to renegotiate the status of Grand Banks fishing. This formed the basis for several further treaties on the subject of said fishing, thereby meaning that the British gave up any rights that they might have theoretically gained in Jay's Treaty and the Treaty of Paris.

And finally, ever since the Louisiana Purchase, the Mississippi River has been considered "internal waters" of the United States and as such is subject to regulation by Congress. Since Congress has passed several statutes on immigration and foreign travel through the United States, these would then apply to the navigation of the Mississippi.

 

[bhsup]

Sorry, Dachs, but no treaty signed since there specifically nullifies the UK rights. They still exist. If you can find wording in any treaty since then that does in fact specifically state the UK no longer has said right that the UK and US signed and that the US Senate has ratified, I'll be happy to change my view.

But again... dag nabbit ...this is beyond the intent of this CHAMBER thread.

 

[Dachs]

Sorry, Dachs, but no treaty signed since there specifically nullifies the UK rights. They still exist.

I like to stick my fingers in my ears and sing to drown out the mean voices too, but that doesn't mean I think they're wrong.

 

[Cutlass]

That's idiotic. The federal government is composed of representatives from all the States. You can't pull a "they forced those decisions on me!" facade; you were part of those decisions. It's a republic.

The big irony is that the debt is primarily the fault of the politicians from states that are the most likely to want to secede.

 

[Evie]

1) should US military bases:
a) become military bases of Exstatia,
b) remain as US military bases and function like those in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc.
c) be disbanded with all personnel and equipment being transported back to the US,

The federal government should chose: with exstatia permission, it may maintain the base as their own OR it may cede the base to Exstatia (in which case it should include the base among the federal infrastructures for which Exstatia is expected to pay), OR it may dismantle the base (in which case it's not infrastructure Exstatia has to pay for.

2) Does the ownership of nuclear weapons that have been stockpiled within Exstatia:

b) remain with the US,

3) should members of the US armed forces who recognised Exstatia as their home state before secession:

c) be given the option to continue serving or to be released from duty,

4) which of the following options should those who had identified Exstatia as their home state before secession have:

a) to become dual citizens of Exstatia and the US,

America recognizes dual citizenship, therefore, it should acknowledge it in the case of Exstatia.

Besides which, let go of all the juicy nationality-based taxation? Puh-leeze.

5) How much of the US's national debt should be transferred to Exstatia:

b) an amount related to assets of the US government in Exstatia,
d) other

Ideally, Exstatia should take on any federal debt linked to assets that end up in Exstatian possession, as well as a share of the non-asset-based debt based on their population weight.
This assume that such debt can be calculated precisely. This may be highly unlikely.

Failing that, Exstatia should get a share of the debt based on two chief elements
1)Market value of assets left in Exstatian possession (compared to the total market value of all federal assets prior)
2)Demographic weight of Exstatia in the union.

I won't really speculate as to the last three questions as these are highly dependent on the specific state, other than to note that Exstatia would probably greatly expand its own government to take over all the jobs formerly handled by federal people.

 

[Core Imposter]

Nancy Pelosi would say we'd have to secede and then we'd find out. As a practical matter the Federal government would be compelled to act to quash the effort. At that point events render academic this speculation.

 

[Winner]

I am curious as to how this worked when the USSR broke up. Does anyone have knowledge of this?

Well, in the case I am familiar with, Czechoslovakia, everything was basically split 2/3 - 1/3, which was the population ratio between Czechia and Slovakia.

Military bases/hardware went to the country where they were situated at the time of the split. The only problem was the air force, but trade-offs were negotiated there. People were free to choose which citizenship they wanted, no matter what language they actually spoke (so technically Czechs were free to choose Slovak citizenship and vice versa, which was more common at the time). Government debt at that time was very low, and I believe it was split in the same ration as everything else.

At first, there was a currency union between Czechia and Slovakia, but that collapsed pretty quickly due to the poor economic situation in Slovakia at the time (basically we faced similar pressure that Eurozone faces today, and maintaining the currency union would have meant Czechia subsidizing Slovakia for a long time with no control over what the Slovak government does).

In the beginning, the Slovak economy slumped a lot more than the Czech one. Since 1998 though, Slovakia has been catching up due to its more progressive and liberal economic policies.

 

[Thedrin]

Guys, this thread wasn't to argue the merits or legality of secession. It was assumed in the OP that it was legal, done, and everybody was now holding hands and singing coca-cola harmony song.

You're correct that it wasn't to be about the legality of secession, but the merits of secession is open to discussion. If I've worded the OP badly I'd take suggestions on rewrites.

7) How should Exstatia's economy handle the loss of capital as investors and owners of fluid assets move their assets out of Exstatia into the US? Protectionism? In the specific case of the glorious Republic of Missouri, we'd need to reach out to the UK. The UK, having unfettered navigation rights up the Mississippi via the Treaty of Paris, could become our initial lifeline until we negotiate other trade agreements with the US and other nations. But I am curious why the assumption that we would lose businesses. You do not think they would stay out of a sense of loyalty?

Investors tend to dislike revolutions, peaceful or otherwise. Without the well established pro-business US federal government and supreme court behind it, the glorious Republic of Missouri wouldn't be as attractive an investment to foreigners. The leaders of the new regime may certainly intend to be as friendly to investors, or even more so, but without much track record those are just words and good intentions. The actions of the state government before secession can't be taken as a perfect indicator of future actions because the state government operated from within a larger structure that has now been removed. How the state government operates without this larger structure will be monitored for a while before the security of investments can be determined.

 

[innonimatu]

Respectively:

1. a, with some exceptions
2. b
3. combination of c and d due to the Red Army's conscription system
4. usually d
5. a, sort of; Russia assumed the entire debt of the Soviet Union
6. varied radically from republic to republic
7. not really applicable in most cases
8. varied radically from republic to republic

It's also worth noting that technically it wasn't secession, the whole union was abolished. In practice Russia acted as successor state and got almost the entire armed forces. Many of the other state institutions themselves nearly collapsed before the russians finally picked up most of the central bureaucracy. The confusion between the CPSU and the USSR institutions and the disbandment of the former made things even messier.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Bleh, a country with that name won't last too long.

 

[Farm Boy]

The big irony is that the debt is primarily the fault of the politicians from states that are the most likely to want to secede.

Expound plz.

 

[Cutlass]

Expound plz.

What states have any sizable secessionist sentiment? A selection of them, really. But Texas is the big one, with South Carolina again, and Alaska. Where are you most likely to find big deficit politicians? Conservative states. It isn't an accident that Reagan and GW Bush put us on the paths of most of the debt creation in the country.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, seeing as those places have religious problems with collecting enough revenue to pay for what they spend, maybe we'd do k without them. If only the more liberal states didn't also fail so completely when it comes to budgeting. So maybe both sides are religious.

I don't remember the federal spending vs collection ratio from TX, but Reagan isn't fitting neatly into the state blame game here. How do you want him claimed, by birth in IL or by governorship in CA?

 

[Cutlass]

And the members of Congress that voted with him?

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, not that I am disagreeing with you really, I just think we should probably kick out more states than you suggest. You aren't going far enough!

Now I just need to pick which state is the least moronic.

 

[Cutlass]

Oh, sure. Many of them if you go that route. But they'd have to take their share of the debt with them.Maybe we should apportion the debt by the members of Congress that voted for it.

 

[Crezth]

It'd be useful if someone could fish out that graph of the top 10 biggest givers/takers among the states for government revenue.