Today, 159 years after that war ended, Americans are worried another might be on their doorstep. And some political leaders are arguing that in order to stop a seemingly inevitable implosion, certain states, including California, should divorce the United States for good.

And with the prospect of either man in the Oval Office, there has been a lot of talk about “national divorce” from states such as Texas, California, and New Hampshire. But it’s important to understand that national divorce is just another term for secession.

But that is not stopping these states from trying anyway. However, in order to successfully separate from the United States, California, Texas, New Hampshire, and whoever else wants to go will not only need the votes, but they’ll also need to fight for the “divorce” in a court of law.

Republican representatives of the northern state have already introduced two pieces of legislation, CACR 20 and House Bill 1130. The CACR is an amendment to the Constitution that says NH will leave the USA if the country’s debt amounts to more than $40 trillion. And House Bill 1130 says the state is already studying the legal and economic aspects of “exerting its sovereign rights.”

“Yes California” was founded in 2015, and now, its members are working on adding a measure called CalExit 3.1 to a future ballot. CalExit explains that the state will essentially break in two, half of which will remain a part of the United States, and the other will be a sovereign entity called Pacifica.

Marinelli told Newsweek, “So right now, we’re more working on the concept of national divorce as an alternative to potential civil violence and civil war in the country. Our belief is that there’s a lot of growing political violence and political problems in the country that may lead to fighting in the streets, civil war too, some people are calling for. We are trying to propose the idea of potentially doing a national divorce of some sort…to avoid that type of situation.”

Marinelli said, “Because of what’s happening [in Ukraine and] around the world and the possibility that the United States can be drawn into war, we think it would be counterproductive to Western civilization and the cause of democracy if we were also fighting within our own country.”

And Evans has a very different plan for California. He told the press, “CalExit was always the idea of all of California leaving America,” not that just part of the state would secede.

While there is no doubt that thousands, if not millions, of Californians, are frustrated with the federal government, a great deal of campaigning, organization, and legislation will need to be passed before the state can even think about breaking free.

Instead of one state divorcing the other 49, one idea is that the entire country will split into two groups: The red Republican states as one country and the blue Democratic states as another.

She said in the interview, “The last thing that I ever want to see in America is a civil war. No one wants that…but it’s going that direction, and we have to do something about it.” Greene also wrote on an X post, “Soon national divorce may be our only option.”

As mentioned, there will have to be a significant amount of legislation passed, votes accumulated, and even probably a several-year-long court case before the Supreme Court. However, if these states get serious, it could happen.

The genesis of this movement can be traced back to the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, notably fueled by the divergence between California’s political preferences—where Hillary Clinton secured 61% of the vote—and the national outcome.

However, this self-proclaimed republic lasted less than a month, as the U.S. Navy swiftly intervened. The remnants of this episode linger in the state’s flag, a testament to California’s brief stint as an independent entity.

As mentioned, the organization was founded by Louis Marinelli and Marcus Ruiz Evans. The group underwent reorganization in 2015 to champion California’s independence. Initially led by Marinelli, controversies surrounding his residence in Russia prompted leadership changes, with Evans assuming the role of president.

Secondly, Yes California underscores the state’s economic prowess as a pivotal rationale for secession. By emphasizing California’s position as the world’s fifth-largest economy, just shy of France’s, the organization positions economic strength as a key driver for independence. Lastly, Yes California advocates for local governance, contending that Californians are inherently better equipped to govern their state.

Boasting a GDP of $3.51 trillion in 2021, California’s economic significance is underscored by its ranking as the world’s fifth-largest economy if treated as an independent nation. With a population of 39.2 million, the state’s demographic strength further bolsters the case for autonomy.

This includes arguments for enhanced peace and security by reducing vulnerability to retaliation, the limited impact of California’s electoral votes, potential conflicts with U.S. international agreements, the financial detriment of subsidizing other states since 1987, the need for a tailored immigration policy, and more.

Precedents, such as the American colonies’ independence and the Southern states’ secession in 1861, underscore the lack of legal clarity. The Supreme Court’s stance in Texas v. White (1869), ruling against the legality of Texas’ secession, provides insight but doesn’t definitively settle the matter.

Marinelli suggests that California could propose a constitutional amendment for secession, requiring approval from two-thirds of Congress and ratification by 38 states. Alternatively, a constitutional convention with approval from two-thirds of its delegates and subsequent ratification by 38 states is proposed. However, the feasibility of garnering such political consensus remains a formidable challenge.

The legal and political intricacies, combined with the formidable requirement of nationwide consensus, render the likelihood of California seceding a highly improbable scenario.

The evolution of arguments—from military annexation to a comprehensive focus on California’s potential as an independent entity—reflects the multifaceted nature of this movement. While secession remains legally ambiguous and politically challenging, the persistent endeavors of Yes California underscore the enduring dialogue around California’s unique place within the United States.