What Would Really Happen If California Seceded?

SHTFPLAN ^ | 08/02/2017 | Daniel Lang

[SeekAndFind]

There are two kinds of people who support the Calexit movement. People living in California who think that their state would be far better off without being hitched to the rest of the union, and people living in every other state who can’t wait to get rid of California.

I’d wager that latter of those two know something that most Calexit supporters in California do not. They know that the golden state is a toxic influence on the rest of the country. It’s become a breeding ground for leftists ideologies, and the people who believe those ideologies have run the state into the ground. As California slips further into debt and the cost of living mounts, those people are moving away to states where there are more opportunities.

But rather than abandoning the beliefs that turned their previous home into an expensive bureaucratic hellhole, they often vote and behave just like they did in California. They turn cities in conservative states into bastions leftist deterioration… little microcosms of where they came from.

That’s why it’s pretty obvious that if California really did secede from the United States, it wouldn’t suddenly be unshackled from the rest of the country. The state wouldn’t become some beacon of progressive values and prosperity. Without the balancing influence of the rest of the country, which keeps California in check to some degree, everything wrong with the state would be amplified. Rather than being free to pursue some grand destiny, California would only be free to pursue the same wrongheaded policies that have driven it towards such a stark, downward trajectory.

That fact was on display recently, when Calexit leader Shankar Singam went on Tucker Carlson Tonight. During the interview, Tucker challenged the notion that California would be able to manage itself properly. He brought up the fact that hundreds of thousands of upper and middle class people have left the state in recent years, which to any sane person would be an indication that their government is doing something terribly wrong to drive these people away.

Singam would beg to differ. He admitted, without any coaxing, that this wave of fleeing middle class Californians is a good thing, because it makes room for more immigrants, and helps spread Californian ideals to the rest of the country.

You heard that correctly. He thinks it’s good to push out productive citizens and replace them low skilled migrants.

It’s obvious what would happen if California became it’s own country. The middle class would be hollowed out. It would immediately turn into a banana republic, where you are either a wealthy elitist or an impoverished peasant who is dependent on the state. Though it wouldn’t be in California’s best interest to secede, it’s apparent that America can’t get rid of this cesspool fast enough.

[Kickass Conservative]

Here are my predictions.

If the Rats take back either the House, Senate or both in 2018, the Calexit Movement dies.

If the Rats win the Presidency in 2020, even if they don’t take back the House, Senate or both, the Calexit Movement dies.

If President Trump is Reelected in 2020 and the (undeserving) Republicans retain the House and Senate, every Liberal in CA will walk into the Pacific Ocean and drown themselves.

Well, I can hope.

[PeaRidge]

I have not been following this thread , and am not sure what the question is.

Kettel goes to length in the book explaining the sources, the use of data, and the outcomes of his computations. His sources were Customs data by port, category of goods shipped, and export value. (There are several modern economists, Adams for one, that verify his data and conclusions).

His data was reviled and attacked by other economists and newspapers of the time.

Nothing changed his facts.....more than 75% of the export value was of Southern origin. Customs data from early 1861 verified that.

The real question was how the Federal government would operate when secession permitted direct trade with the South, thus denying Federal tariff revenue. There are many records and articles on how severely crippled the US Treasury was at the time Lincoln ordered warships and military to Charleston and Pensacola to stop direct trade.

[PeaRidge]

I took the time to read the “sources” in post 66.

Amazing. None of them supplied any data from Commerce Department which is easy to find.

Seems as if none of them heard of the Morriil Tariff which more than doubled the tariff costs passed onto Southern consumers.

It conforms with the public school classroom narrative that the South started the war so let's talk about slavery.

No one is taught that there was an operating and stable peace until Lincoln sent the Navy to invade Pensacola and Charleston.

[DiogenesLamp]

Amazing. None of them supplied any data from Commerce Department which is easy to find.

That was exactly my point in my response. All they offered were opinions and allegations without providing amy hard numbers to back up their claims.

It conforms with the public school classroom narrative that the South started the war so let's talk about slavery.

Steering the discussion into a referendum on slavery is a tactic intended on keeping anyone from looking at the money situation. They introduce "slavery" as the central and in many case only topic they will allow to be discussed regarding the Civil War, and the money motive gets completely lost in the ensuing confusion.

Lincoln did not provoke a war with the South over slavery. He provoked a war with the South because the South was going to severely hurt his base of support in the North East, economically.

The civil war was over money, and the potential industrial/financial competition that would occur with the North if the South became independent.

A further threat to the North was the potential for more states (especially the Midwest territories) to leave the orbit of the Union and join the economic orbit of the Confederacy.

The people getting cut out of power in this scenario are the Northeaster Industrialists, Bankers, Insurers, Shippers and Washington DC. You know, the people who have more or less ran our government ever since 1860.

Do you have a link to those Commerce Department numbers? I think our FRiend is mostly out of the discussion, but I would like to show him some numbers that he cannot rebuke because they came out of a "racist" book written in 1860. Official government numbers are hard to argue with, because they are the acknowledged "good guy" by most of the people who think the Civil War was a good thing.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have not been following this thread , and am not sure what the question is.

I made the statement that in 1860, the South was paying 75% of all the taxes to run the Federal government, and Carl Vehse disputed this point. He offered as proof several links, but none of them quoted any real numbers on who was earning what money and who was getting taxed on it.

I thought at first that he would be interested to know, just as I only discovered a year ago, that the South was by far paying the bulk of the tax bill for the entire nation. I was shocked when I first learned this, because I had originally bought the premise of that map of tariff collections that I often post, as demonstrating that New York paid the vast majority of taxes.

I didn't understand the true picture until I looked at the real numbers regarding who was earning European money, and who was not.

The real question was how the Federal government would operate when secession permitted direct trade with the South, thus denying Federal tariff revenue. There are many records and articles on how severely crippled the US Treasury was at the time Lincoln ordered warships and military to Charleston and Pensacola to stop direct trade.

Well we now know the answer. They initiated a system of borrowing and spending, selling bonds, raising taxes, collecting deferment fees from rich people, and using the military blockade to freeze out their economic competitor in the South, thus forcing all European traffic to trade only with the North.

[PeaRidge]

Here is the economic data: (from Historical Statistics of the US, Dept. of Commerce, pg. 164)
Receipts of US Government for 1859—$53,486,000

Revenue from tariffs in 1859—$49,566,000

Federal government spent all of this on Congressional items, Navy and Army budgets, interest on public debt, and veterans pensions.

Tariff data: In 1859 tariff revenue was $49,566,000 on $331,333,000 worth of imports.

The exports from the US that bought those goods were worth $278,902,000 at the ports of exit from the US.

Of that amount, the value of cotton, tobacco, rice, naval stores, sugar, molasses, hemp, cotton manufactures (all originating in the South) was worth $198,309,000 (Statistical abstract of the US, 1936 edition,pgs 435-439) or about 71%.

Adams uses the figures of 87% which is the above amounts, plus he adds the value of tariffs paid on overseas purchases made with cash by Southern governments, and the proportional value of southern cotton in northern textile exports.

[PeaRidge]

This data chart must be the one you are seeking:

U. S. Department of Commerce

Agricultural Production of the South Yearly Detail 1859

Value of Total U.S. Exports ..........$278,902,000

Value of Raw Southern Products:

Cotton .....................$161,435,000
Tobacco .....................21,074,000
Rice .........................2,207,000
Naval stores .................3,696,000
Sugar ..........................197,000
Molasses ........................76,000
Hemp .............................9,000
Other ........................9,615,000
________
Total ( 71% ) $198,309,000

Value of Southern manufactured Cotton exports ............4,989,000
Value of cotton component of Northern Manufactured cotton exports (60%) ......3,669,000
___________
Total ( 74% ) $205,459,000

Value of Processed Foods:
.............Bread-stuffs/processed fish/meats/corn...........$36,640,000

Total Southern Products ( 87% ) $242,099,000

Export Specie for Purchase or debts: ........$57,502,000 assume 20% for overseas purchase.

Total Southern Contribution ....................$252,000,000

U.S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Treasury, Report of L. E. Chittenden, Howell Cobb, Treasurer, Annual State of the Union Address, James Buchanan, J. D. B. DeBow, Charles Adams, Thomas Kettel, W. F. Taussig, Thomas Huertas, Historical Statistics of the United States Department of Commerce, pg. 106,432.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thank you for that. Now that we have numbers from an official source, perhaps Carl Vehse will deign to look at them.

They establish my original point as valid. The South was paying most of the cost of running the US Government.

[Jim Noble]

I presume that military posts which were never under the government of the State of California (that were ceded to the People of the United States by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and never passed under the sovereignty of California), or which were subsequently purchased by Congress for use as forts and dockyards per Article I section 8, would remain part of the United States.

[PeaRidge]

About that map and who uses it. The map only gives the amount of tariffs collected at the U.S. Customs house in New York. What amount was paid by locals cannot be defined.

Who paid it is another matter and cannot be determined by referring to that data.

[DiogenesLamp]

About that map and who uses it. The map only gives the amount of tariffs collected at the U.S. Customs house in New York. What amount was paid by locals cannot be defined.

Who paid it is another matter and cannot be determined by referring to that data.

Not by looking at the map data, but when you incorporate this other information about who was earning the European money, it becomes quite clear who was paying the taxes.

The South was paying most of the taxes for the entire nation.

[jjotto]

Venezuela is close.

In a generation, California would be dependent on food and energy imports.

[Alas Babylon!]

Hmmm... How do you put a Naval base (San Diego, for example) in a state without an ocean, like Nevada or Arizona?

[morphing libertarian]

http://www.navy.mil/local/viewLocalVideo.asp?id=506&v=22390

[morphing libertarian]

Indiana[edit]
NSWC Crane Division/NSA Crane (website)
Heslar Naval Armory
Louisiana[edit]
NASJRB New Orleans
Maine[edit]
Portsmouth NSY (website)
Maryland[edit]
Indian Head NSWC
National Naval Medical Center
Navy Information Operations Command Maryland
Naval Support Facility Thurmont
NSWC Carderock Division
NAS Patuxent River
United States Naval Academy, Annapolis ([2])
NSS Annapolis ([3])
Mississippi[edit]
Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport (website)
NAS Meridian
Nevada[edit]
NAS Fallon (website)
New Jersey[edit]
NWS Earle (website)
Lakehurst Maxfield Field (formerly Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst) (part of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (JB MDL))
New Mexico[edit]
Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, White Sands Detachment ([4])
New York[edit]
Naval Support Facility Saratoga Springs
North Dakota[edit]
Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master Station Atlantic Detachment LaMoure
Pennsylvania[edit]
Naval Support Activity Mechanicsburg
Naval Support Activity Philadelphia
Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility Philadelphia
Rhode Island[edit]
NS Newport (website)
South Carolina[edit]
Naval Support Activity Charleston (website)
USNH Beaufort (website)
Tennessee[edit]
NSA Mid-South (website)
Texas[edit]
NAS Corpus Christi (website)
NASJRB Fort Worth
NAS Kingsville
METC Fort Sam Houston, TX
Virginia[edit]
The Pentagon
Navy Annex Arlington, Virginia (demolished 2012 and appended to Arlington National Cemetery)[1]
NAS Oceana (website)
Navy and Marine Corps Intelligence Training Center Dam Neck, Virginia
NAB Little Creek (website)
Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, Virginia (NMCP) (website)
Norfolk Naval Shipyard (website)
NSGA Chesapeake
NS Norfolk (website)
Naval Support Activity South Potomac (website)
NSWC Dahlgren Division (website)
Naval Support Activity Hampton Roads (website )
NWS Yorktown (website)
Training Support Center Hampton Roads, formerly Fleet Combat Training Center Atlantic Dam Neck
Wallops Island ASCS
Washington[edit]
NS Everett (website)
NB Kitsap (website)
Naval Submarine Base Bangor
Naval Station Bremerton
Naval Hospital Bremerton
Puget Sound NSY (website)
NAS Whidbey Island (website)
NAVMAG Indian Island (website)
NUWC Keyport (website)
Washington, D.C.[edit]
United States Naval Observatory
Naval Support Facility Anacostia
Washington Navy Yard
West Virginia[edit]
Navy Information Operations Command Sugar Grove (website)

[Alas Babylon!]

I watched the video. It was from the Graet Lakes Training Base. It was about some sailors in Honduras performing a humanitarian mission.

I’m confused. Is this relevant to the discussion?

[Alas Babylon!]

OK. The original poster said moving the California bases to the “states immediately to the East of California.” That would be Nevada and Arizona. So that is what I was addressing.

As far as the other bases, I am actually well-versed on the various CONUS facilities of the US military. I served 22 years in the USAF, but my ID card gets me into most bases whatever service that runs them.

[morphing libertarian]

navy stations not on the ocean

[Concentrate]

Most? Not all?

[Concentrate]

That fact was on display recently, when Calexit leader Shankar Singam went on Tucker Carlson Tonight. During the interview, Tucker challenged the notion that California would be able to manage itself properly.

Direct link to video, please. Direct.