AHC: Have a US state secede in the 20th century

[Comte de Geneve]

Both parties ban the NH primary and then William Loeb endorses secession in the Union Leader.

 

[John Farrier]

The post-apocalyptic novel Warday imagines life in the United States five years after a nuclear war in 1983. The US prevailed over the USSR, but is economically devastated as a result of the nuclear exchange. Alaska, cut off from the lower 48, joins Canada. If memory serves, the US sells Alaska in exchange for financial aid.

The novel is profoundly depressing, even by the standards of the genre. But I really appreciate its economic realism. I think that even a limited nuclear war would be economically catastrophic for a nation. Many novels about nuclear war, such as Arc Light, assume that the US could shrug off the economic impact of a nuclear war.

 

[yulzari]

Nothing like this would be remotely necessary or desirable. (Hell, even in the American Civil War none of this happened, and that was a much more extreme scenario than simply one state seceding.) Look at somewhere like Catalonia, where the population is more or less evenly split on the question of independence. Spain didn't need to turn into North Korea and start executing pro-independence leaders and imprisoning literally everyone who voted for independence, they just arrested the pro-independence politicians who attempted to secede and put down protests using the police. A US state with a secessionist movement would likely end up similarly even if its secessionists were more popular than Catalonia's: federal forces roll in and take control, the politicians involved in the secession attempt are arrested, and protests are suppressed. You don't need to arrest literally every single supporter of secession unless you assume they all will stop at nothing to make it happen and can only be stopped from actively revolting against the government if they're killed or imprisoned, and you shouldn't, because that's a bad assumption. If 60% or whatever of the population are pro-independence, the vast majority of them will be basically ordinary people with concerns other than secession who will respond to a setback like this by just going back to their jobs and biding their time, and in the meanwhile not doing anything that would be worth sending them to a camp for.

Indeed so, these are some ways in which a government has acted to suppress an active secessionist movement. But I am curious as to how far a democratic government will go in the USA to put down a popular move of self determination if it does not subside. We saw Czechoslovakia split peaceably into Czechia and Slovakia, the bloody secessions from Yugoslavia and the United Kingdom, for one, has made it clear that a majority in any of the constituent parts to leave the Union would be respected (but it would be nice if they ever asked the English for their views for once).

But the ‘Land of the Free’ devoted to ‘Liberty’ prevents a constituent State from from exercising a democratic right of self determination. As to how likely the situation might arise I am not an American and neither informed nor qualified to to comment, but it does smack of treating their states like colonies and a majority endorsed secession as a native rising.

At least the existing legal position in the USA appears to legitimise the actions of the British government in using armed force to suppress the secession of the United States from the British Empire. Perhaps they might (tongue in cheek) apologise, agree that Lord North was right and come back in?…..

 

[Falloutfan]

The U.S. turning into a dictatorship during the Great Depression seems like the best followed by a limited nuclear war scenario.

Edit:
A wrote this response in another thread the other day. It technically fits the bill even if its unlikely to occur.

Lenin isn't shot during the Russian Civil War leading to Stalin being sidelined, the Red Terror being slightly less terrifying and more democratic unionist elements of the Soviet Union win out the 1920s due to Lenin's change of perspective.

Trotsky is still sidelined for being a Jew and Lenin dies for unrelated medical reasons by 1930. The NEP Party conservatives and pro-democracy forces in the U.S.S.R. seize control. Stalin is still around but as in OTL goes with the popular faction to retain some degree of control.

The 1930-1941 U.S.S.R. rapidly industrializes focusing on heavy industry but doesn't force the peasants into work camps, doesn't starve their citizens and doesn't purge their military officer class. This U.S.S.R. is less industrialized than OTL counterpart by the time Barbarossa starts but it has a more effective military caste and millions of more productive subjects who also somewhat like the regime.

Barbarossa still goes well at first for the Nazis due to the relative lack of industrialization but the distances involved still bog down the Nazis and they face more stiff partisan resistance since the Communists weren't asshats to the locals since the original Red Terror.

Stalin manages to take over by 42 but he's not the totalitarian version we know instead he acts more like his early career in OTL working the angles and groups within the bureaucracy. He declares the Nazi invasion to the gates of Moscow as proof of the failure of the NEP and enacts War Communism again.

The Soviet population that remains under their control is fully mobilized by mid 42 only without any purges or non regular penal gulags. The economy is fully nationalized and every man, woman and child is sent into action to protect the motherland. Lend and Lease also begins to make an impact.

By spring of 46 the Nazis are defeated with the Red Army parked in mid-Poland a bit to the West of Warsaw. Stalin tries to keep War Communism and his centralized rule going and is shot by the NKVD who have the backing of the major NEP resultant industrialist factions and unions.

In practice past 1947 the Soviet Union and less Warsaw Pact are ruled as a syndicatalist quasi-democratic union with some property rights. Light industry and matters of non-national security concern are allowed to remain under market mechanisms of distribution.

This ATL Soviet Union is able to have a faster economic growth period during the 1950s and doesn't slow in the 70s and 80s like OTL with the Soviets adopting computerization and by 2000 working out central planning to the scale of say OTL Wal Mart for the distribution of goods. By 2010 this ATL U.S.S.R. economy is the size of OTL China of the same year.

Meanwhile the U.S. had a POD in the 1950s and the Civil Rights Movement is derailed. By the time you get to the 1990s go read Rumsfielda the U.S. balkanizes like OTL U.S.S.R. Alaska becomes independent. As the OTL 2022 U.S. mainland regime consolidates power and makes moves to retake Washington State the Republic of Alaska votes to join the U.S.S.R. as a colony of sorts in exchange for protection from the U.S.

The Second Cold War begins.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

I wonder if you could alter Hawaii's twentieth century history to pull this off. The fact that it wound up under US control at all was extremely dodgy.

Hawaii's admission to the Union entailed a referendum with 94% of ballots cast in favor of statehood. I think the POD necessary to create enough Hawaiian support for independence would also butterfly away statehood, thus it wouldn't fulfill the AHC.

 

[Emperor Max]

Calls for an Apology to the annexation of Hawaii in the early 90s are even more extreme and Bill Clinton calls a referendum on the issue in 1992, where there is a majority in favour of independence as the Kingdom of Hawaii.

 

[David Floyd]

Absent nuclear war? No.

 

[Father Maryland]

Technically the governor of North Dakota announced that the state had seceded in the 30s. It was in order to evade impeachment/ corruption charges and nobody besides the Gov and a handful of his cronies took it seriously and it ended after a day of the gov barricaded inside of his office.

 

[MrHappy]

I wonder if you could alter Hawaii's twentieth century history to pull this off. The fact that it wound up under US control at all was extremely dodgy.

Hawaii's population is currently about 10% native Hawaiian. The other 90% are almost entirely non-native born. There are more persons of Hawaiian ancestry living in Clark County Nevada than on 4 of Hawaii's 5 counties (if my unofficial census data site is accurate). Hawaii historically had a small native population and, accordingly, the islands needed to import laborers for the agricultural industries. Putting aside the manner of the US annexation, the current Hawaiian sovereignty movement isn't very big, has competing groups, and often serves simply as a "rent-a-crowd" used to show up and protest this or that development.

 

[MrHappy]

The post-apocalyptic novel Warday imagines life in the United States five years after a nuclear war in 1983. The US prevailed over the USSR, but is economically devastated as a result of the nuclear exchange. Alaska, cut off from the lower 48, joins Canada. If memory serves, the US sells Alaska in exchange for financial aid.

The novel is profoundly depressing, even by the standards of the genre. But I really appreciate its economic realism. I think that even a limited nuclear war would be economically catastrophic for a nation. Many novels about nuclear war, such as Arc Light, assume that the US could shrug off the economic impact of a nuclear war.

I also recall from the novel a new borderland state nation arising in formerly US & Mexican territory (south of the radioactive San Antonio zone). Additionally, California was preparing to bolt.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

you can get damn near anything onto the California ballot as an initiative. after that it's not impossible that a succession bill could be passed as ajoke/protest as "everyone knows that the feds would never let it happen". and then shocked Pikachu face when the rest of the states band together to kick California curbside.

tl;dr California has succession forced upon it.

 

[oberdada]

A 51st state is created on a small island in the Pacific and used as a bad bank. All Federal debt is transferred there and then it secedes. No more quarrels about raising the debt ceiling for a long time. Hurray. Everybody is happy, or fucked, or both.

 

[Rufus]

you can get damn near anything onto the California ballot as an initiative. after that it's not impossible that a succession bill could be passed as ajoke/protest as "everyone knows that the feds would never let it happen". and then shocked Pikachu face when the rest of the states band together to kick California curbside.

tl;dr California has succession forced upon it.

Yeah, I could imagine something like that with a federal government that’s very right-wing, leading to a hysterical overreaction in California (let‘s say if something like Roe v Wade got overturned, for example). A ballot initiative for Californian secession could start off as a performative stunt by liberal activists, but quickly become serious when the GOP decides that their long-term electoral chances would be significantly improved if California‘s votes in the electoral college were removed. And it‘s not like a formal secession of California would collapse the economy; both sides would still be dependent on each other (especially California, which imports much of its water) and would likely have some kind of free trade agreement with each other. Though that‘s more a scenario for the 21st century, not the 20th.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

Calls for an Apology to the annexation of Hawaii in the early 90s are even more extreme and Bill Clinton calls a referendum on the issue in 1992, where there is a majority in favour of independence as the Kingdom of Hawaii.

I’m aware of why many Hawaiians resent the US government and would consider secession (my opinion on the subject is neither here nor there, but from a personal standpoint, I rather enjoyed my honeymoon and my wife’s 30th birthday, not h of which we spent in Hawaii, and since I live in Ohio, being able to visit such a lovely place without having to go through customs is pretty goddamn nice) but is there a reason why it would revert to a kingdom? I’m aware it was one before, but I’m not aware of a Hawaiian royal family existing today or there being any remnant thereof that stands to be such a family were Hawaii to become independent.

In other words, am I unaware of a reason an independent Hawaii wouldn’t simply be a republic?

A 51st state is created on a small island in the Pacific and used as a bad bank. All Federal debt is transferred there and then it secedes. No more quarrels about raising the debt ceiling for a long time. Hurray. Everybody is happy, or fucked, or both.

The rich and well-connected are happy. The rest of us are fucked. Business as usual since the dawn of fucking agriculture.

 

[Father Maryland]

Hawaii's population is currently about 10% native Hawaiian. The other 90% are almost entirely non-native born. There are more persons of Hawaiian ancestry living in Clark County Nevada than on 4 of Hawaii's 5 counties (if my unofficial census data site is accurate). Hawaii historically had a small native population and, accordingly, the islands needed to import laborers for the agricultural industries. Putting aside the manner of the US annexation, the current Hawaiian sovereignty movement isn't very big, has competing groups, and often serves simply as a "rent-a-crowd" used to show up and protest this or that development.

Yep its my understanding that the Hawaiian independence movement ( or movements) is every practical respect loud but also completely and totally dead in the sense of actually achieving its stated goal ( Restoration of the Kingdom of Hawaii and or some other form of independence). Namely because the vast majority of the populace isn't " Native Hawaiian borne" ( Though I understand the reason for using the terminology it seems a little odd to dub people whos ancestors might have lived there for like more then 5 generations as " non native born"). So even if you could get 100 percent of Native Hawaiians to vote for it you'd lose any democratic election massively.

In terms of non democratic independence by force its also pretty impossible both because of the Numbers issue but also because they would be trying to fight the US a massive power that hugely outnumbers, out finances, and outnumbers any prospective Rebellion/ insurgency. And unlike in say Vietnam or Iraq any would be rebels would have a huge issue with getting foreign aid necessary for fighting with any hope of success.

 

[Sarthak]

A Hawaii with a demographic pod in the early 1900s (the balance wasn't overwhelmingly against natives in 1900) or Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico had a very strong independence movement until the 1970s. War Against All Puerto Ricans is a very good book on the topic.

 

[MrHappy]

Yep its my understanding that the Hawaiian independence movement ( or movements) is every practical respect loud but also completely and totally dead in the sense of actually achieving its stated goal. . .

And lets be honest. Within that movement (which include honest people who genuinely desire an independent Hawaii), there is a significant subset of nuts who dwell in the fringe world of the "Sovereign Citizen" and "Posse Comitatus" philosophies. They check the "yes" box when it comes to re-establishing the "Kingdom of Hawaii," but their views are predicated on the belief that doing so will make their debts, tax obligations, child support payments, and unpaid parking tickets disappear.

 

[PrinceofApathy]

To begin, there is no unilateral right for a US state to secede. The U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. White (1868) held that a state (or states) could secede with the approval of both houses of Congress and then that action being ratified by three-fourths of the other states' legislatures. Good luck with that. Succession unilaterally has the same result as it did for South Carolina, et al. in the 1860's. The again, maybe a state (or collection of states) could wage a successful conflict, or force a concession, but how this would happen is probably pure wish-casting by the person advocating such position. But especially since the later half of the 20th century, after 1960s, state populations are too intermixed. I've lived in 8 states-- what state do I go with? Only an odd handful of citizens nowadays have the level of loyalty and sense of duty to their home state (over the nation) that, as an example, many Confederate leaders expressed at the time of succession. So is California is going to succeed because a Republican is elected president, or will Florida bolt from President Kamala Harris? Its not happening notwithstanding the number of people expending a minimal amount of energy to sign a succession petition or tell a pollster "We're outta here!" Its just talk to vent. When time comes for the heavy lifting needed for an independence movement, you're left with a few nut-jobs.

But I'm ranting and you asked a question that I haven't answered. So, no, I don't see any marginally plausible scenario for a US state to secede from the Union in the 20th Century. That said, if you ask the similar question, any US state, or territory, seceding during the 19th Century (I know, wrong forum, and beside the South), my vote goes to Utah and the militant Mormon sects. Even then, probably not the whole territory.

Instead, I think its far more likely that 49 states would band to together to eject Nebraska from the Union. "Why Nebraska" you ask... its soooo damn boring to drive through.

It was illegal for the Thirteen Colonies to declare independence. If a group of people really want out, they'll try to get out.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Hughes win in 1916, Conservative Democrats dominate 21-33. A Progressive Republican manages to include African Americans fully in New Deal. Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts passed 30 years earlier than otl

 

[frustrated progressive]

Hughes win in 1916, Conservative Democrats dominate 21-33. A Progressive Republican manages to include African Americans fully in New Deal. Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts passed 30 years earlier than otl

Wrong thread?