Caliexit

[bcla]

But (and remember I'm not American so I am actually asking because I don't know) didn't they get the land for free from the State of California when they joined the Union?

Not exactly. The basic idea is that the federal government owned the land before statehood and gets to keep it. They can possibly acquire land after statehood, but they're generally not in a position to buy up large swaths of land. It was a lot easier if they just sort of owned it by default.

Most newly declared states were former territories under the control of an appointed civilian territorial Governor. The federal government has control of a territory before statehood, as well as the ownership of specific federal lands. The terms of statehood for western states typically included a declaration by the new state that they recognized that the federal government continues to have title to such land until such time they choose to dispose of it. In a way it's a bone of contention in several western states, as most of the land in Nevada, Utah, and Arizona are owned and directly controlled by the federal government. Nevada's land is about 90% owned by the federal government. Here's a map:

The red areas are Indian reservations, so they're not specifically federal lands, but they are under the protection of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

California was kind of an interesting case because it was annexed by the United States after the Mexican-American War. California was never formally a territory with a territorial government like Arizona or Nevada was. They just sort of went straight to statehood after being run by the military for a few years. A lot of the land was in private ownership under the Spanish, then the Mexicans. The treaty that settled the war recognized the private land ownership under the Mexican government.

If it ever came to any kind of legal secession, I don't know exactly how they would treat stuff like federal land ownership. The federal government didn't exactly "buy" such land, but just sort of had it when acquiring control. California doesn't even have as high a proportion of federal land compared to other western states like Oregon or Utah. It does get complicated because of water rights. The map may have borders with straight lines, but water doesn't really follow those lines. Water rights and the control of a place like Lake Tahoe would be really interesting. Currently the area around Lake Tahoe is heavily controlled by the US Forest Service. There is of course private land and state, but it's mostly federal land. It's currently a federal effort for forest management, which can be more consistent with one government making most of the decisions.

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

I think Cali should be broken up into 2 states. Texas into at least 3. Florida into 2.

Montana, I'm ok with staying like they are, because there isn't anyone up there anyways, except crazy people and ranchers (who could be the one and the same).

 

[PollyannaMom]

I don't think it will happen because it sets a very disturbing precedent. If you make provisions so one state can leave, another state might want to...then another...until America isn't such a big country any more.

 

[Bilberry]

I can remember back in the late 70s when I was a kid, California was talking about splitting up into smaller states, with some new states possibly leaving the USA.

It seems like several states have desires to leave the union from time to time. Maybe someday it will happen. Hard to say.

 

[Marchand63]

Is this so Alec Baldwin can stay in CA and still say his is leaving the US?

 

[mnrose]

California is the 6th or 7th largest economy in the world. It's huge. For that reason alone, the US would not allow it to "leave." It's too important to the economy of the US, and is (of course) a pretty big "net contributor" to the US (e.g., it contributes more to the federal coffers than it receives in federal tax dollars). In other words, it could do better "without" the US government than the US government could do "without" it.

I do see it more as a political "statement" than any realistic possibility.

 

[mom2rtk]

I do see it more as a political "statement" than any realistic possibility.

I'm SHOCKED!

 

[The Mystery Machine]

We have been discussing this topic at home for awhile now. The Freedom Caucus wants to throw everything to the states. If that is the case, why wouldn't you succeed. Imagine being your own country in the USA and all the headaches with that.

Quick Google and here is the list of recent states applying for succession through the petition process...I think Texas does it every yr. like forever.

Here’s a list of states where residents have filed secession petitions in recent days: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

 

[Marchand63]

Honestly, how is this not a political thread.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Texas talks about this all the time too. At least they used to.

 

[pcstang]

Bye Felicia

 

[Gumbo4x4]

California is the 6th or 7th largest economy in the world. It's huge. For that reason alone, the US would not allow it to "leave." It's too important to the economy of the US, and is (of course) a pretty big "net contributor" to the US (e.g., it contributes more to the federal coffers than it receives in federal tax dollars). In other words, it could do better "without" the US government than the US government could do "without" it.

I do see it more as a political "statement" than any realistic possibility.

But, that economy is in large part dependent upon being part of the US. People forget how difficult those "big economy" states would be to run without direct access to markets & infrastructure in the "small economy" states.

 

[disney4us2002]

Bye Felicia

You beat me to it!

 

[Jennasis]

I don't see it happening.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Sort of like Quebec.

 

[L&Lfan]

California is the 6th or 7th largest economy in the world. It's huge. For that reason alone, the US would not allow it to "leave." It's too important to the economy of the US, and is (of course) a pretty big "net contributor" to the US (e.g., it contributes more to the federal coffers than it receives in federal tax dollars). In other words, it could do better "without" the US government than the US government could do "without" it.

I do see it more as a political "statement" than any realistic possibility.

Than the fact that it's bankrupt must be an exaggeration...Or maybe it's just certain cities....

 

[DisBabe94]

It's interesting to think about although I sincerely doubt it would ever happen.
As previously mentioned, CA has the 6th largest economy in the world and we have extremely valuable "exports" in the entertainment industry. Perhaps some type of trade deal for natural resources such as water could be reached if the Union were amenable. There is no doubt in my mind that California would be just fine without the Union, after a readjustment period.
It is surely a statement. California's culture differs so greatly from that of Middle America so it is easy to see how these ideas gain traction, however unlikely they might be.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

California would no longer need to contribute federal taxes, but they'd also lose federal services, so not sure of the impact.

Imports at CA ports would surely take a major hit & numerous industries would likely relocate - numerous citizens as well. Tourism dollars would also go down. In the end, the state is big enough & populous enough to survive. But, the economy would take a pretty major hit IMO.

 

[MrsDuck]

Been there, tried that. #civilwar

 

[Albort]

Texas talks about this all the time too. At least they used to.

maybe texas and Cali can form a United but separated country with easement rights through Arizona and New Mexico!