Miscellaneous desk
< June 24	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 25

New Jersey Question

I'll rephrase the question what is the most northern Municipality in south jersey?50.68.118.24 (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question originally read: "What is the most northern town in South Jersey? Is it Cherry Hill? Thanks!". It's fine to clarify your question but it's confusing if you do it in such a way that existing answers don't make sense as responses to it. One way to make it clear is to cross out the original version ~~(like this)~~; another way is to post the clarification as a separate item, say at the bottom the thread. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Hill is a township, not a town. According to List of municipalities in New Jersey there are only fifteen towns in the state, and none of them are in Burlington or Ocean counties, which are the northernmost constituents of South Jersey. The articles I've linked to should help you find your answer. Rojomoke (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the term "town" is also often used as a synonym for "village". The OP geolocates to British Columbia, so if she's actually there (no way to know that), she might be using the general terminology. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a he. I'm a she. 50.68.118.24 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Now explain what exactly you mean by "town". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Where is it general to use the term "town" as a synonym for "village"? Kidlington, Oxfordshire, is the largest village in Britain but I've never heard it referred to as a "town". The only towns in the area are Oxford and Bicester. 92.23.53.54 (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, New Jersey is quite a ways from the U.K. According to Wikipedia, a Town is larger than a village but smaller than a city. So then it gets down to how you define "village" and "city". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, a "city" is a place with a cathedral. However, some places (like Cambridge) which don't have a cathedral have been upgraded to city status (possibly the method of doing this is by Royal Charter). Bury St Edmunds has a cathedral but is a town - the name of the diocese is "St Edmundsbury and Ipswich", which may have something to do with it. St David's is a city but my guess is that it's smaller than Kidlington. 92.23.53.54 (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite references rather than repeating myths. City status in the United Kingdom is historically associated with having a cathedral, but that's all; and in any case, the question is about New Jersey, not about British terminology for types of municipalities. --69.159.9.187 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to the clarified question, first note that South Jersey is an unofficial name and there are no precise boundaries for it. However, if we pretend it includes precisely the counties shown in blue on the map in that article, and nothing else, then this map from the state government shows that the answer is Borden Town Township (the spelling on the map) or Bordentown Township (the spelling according to Wikipedia). --69.159.9.187 (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's question seems a bit like asking who was the world's tallest midget. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Tetley, incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "town" has also been used, at least poetically, in reference to cities such as London, New York and Chicago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Secession of Texas result in armed invasion by the U.S. government?

I've recently become interested in the ongoing Texas Secession movement. In all the articles and arguments I have read, both pro and con, not a single thought was given to the possibility of invasion and occupation in order to force Texas to remain in the union. Has the United States government already stated that the military option is off the table? Why are these Texas secessionists so sanguine about their ability to secede peacefully?

Texas is rich in natural resources after all. The United States would not want to lose that. Zombiesturm (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because they aren't actually serious about it, therefore don't actually have to engage in serious analysis of the consequences of their actions. It's just like the armchair militias that walked around the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge looking tough in their tactical gear and automatic rifles for a month or two, up until they were actually faced with the legal consequences to their actions, at which point they couldn't run away and hide fast enough. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or they think today's politicians won't have the stomach to let American soldiers be seen attacking Americans on television, especially if the casus belli is a popular referendum that wasn't obviously crooked. —Tamfang (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense, thanks! (Although I have the sneaking suspicion that the federal government would indeed invade, esp. if there was any pretext like Texas threatening U.S. installations a la Fort Sumter.) Zombiesturm (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The American Civil War pretty definitively settled what would happen if a state tried to leave the Union, and it would indeed involve warfare. Especially given that any secession movement would almost certainly be over a highly-divisive constitutional issue with significant minority resistance within said state. The departure of a single state would almost assuredly trigger other state departures, and mean the dissolution of the Union, and therefore the United States as a polity would be fighting for its political survival. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is that precedent. So why are the Secessionists so willfully ignoring the potential consequences of armed invasion and destruction of their beloved State? Zombiesturm (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about historical Texas secession movements that may be brought up to date by the latest proposal of a "Texit" referendum inspired by the UK's "Brexit". AllBestFaith (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You (NBSB) say that as if the precedent is binding on future Presidents. —Tamfang (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The political consequences to the United States would be the same as they were in 1861, and therefore the response would almost certainly be the same. A key component to the federal union of the United States is that it is, by design, indissoluble except by revolution, because there is no constitutional means of leaving and as per the Supremacy Clause state governments are a priori subordinate to the Federal government, meaning they cannot unilaterally decide to reject the federal government in areas the Constitution defines as Federal responsibilities and powers. Permitting a state to leave the Union would set the precedent that a state *can* leave the Union, which would essentially permit states to endlessly attempt to hold the Federal government hostage by means of secession threats, largely defeating the Supremacy Clause and destroying the foundation of current constitutional Federal government.

A "United States of America" in which states could freely leave would not be the United States of America as currently constituted - it would be some other, much weaker polity. Any president who permitted that to happen would be writing his or her country's own epitaph and establishing their historical legacy as the president who destroyed the Union, or at the least allowed the Union to be destroyed. That's not a legacy any president wants to have, and therefore they'd assuredly take measures to stop it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it's no longer 1861. In the past 30 years several regions declared independence and even got it without significant war. President Mikhail Gorbachev tried every diplomatic means to prevent the dissolution of the Soviet Union, including some limited violence, but did not risk civil war and, facing no other alternatives, formally dissolved the union. No violence was involved in the independence of Czechia, Slovakia, Montenegro, Republic of Macedonia. The war of independence of Slovenia lasted 10 days and claimed only 63 people's lives, far from what you'd call a full-scale war. If (when) Scotland were to declare independence, I doubt England would send troops.

When Kosovo rebelled against Serbia and Serbia sent in its army, the USA along with its NATO partners began a bombing campaign to block the Serbian military action, freeing the way for Kosovo independence, recognised by the USA the next day. Apparently the USA is opposed to military action to prevent independence and is even willing to give military support to those wanting independence. That is a precedent too. It would be hypocritical for the USA to use military action to prevent Texan independence.

Not that it would be the first time the US government would show hypocrisy. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An independent Texas would have to create its own army and navy, unless they could work a deal to outsource it to the US. They would have to invent their own currency (or re-use old Confederate money). They would have to figure out what to do about the folks who would be fleeing. They would have to invent their own passport system, their own banking system, etc. As shown with the Brexit, secessionists often don't think things through. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was any of that less true in the separations that Pius listed? —Tamfang (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Baseball Bugs, as a neophytic Texan, I recently did some research on Texas_Military_Forces. Unlike most states, we have three state military bodies here, and the Texas State Guard is solely controlled by the state. It's hard to get good numbers and know what to compare, but TX seems to currently have one of the largest, if not the absolute largest state military complexes in the USA. I mean yeah it's a dumb idea and it probably won't ever happen, but there are a LOT of non-fed military personnel and equipment in TX. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they tried to storm Fort Hood, for example, you'd have another Fort Sumter on your hands. And once a blockade was imposed, Texas would be unable to export or import anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Scottish independence referendum of 2014, Westminster had granted Scotland prior permission to carry through with independence. Therefore your example of Scotland is inapposite unless Washington D.C. grants Texas prior permission to secede. Zombiesturm (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The consequences of secession would be similar, but the costs of opposing it might be greater, so the calculation could be different. —Tamfang (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The costs to the United States in infrastructure or monetary costs may be less today than in 1861, as the U.S. has built up a massive, trigger happy, military-industrial complex. In addition, the United States would only be fighting against one state rather than eleven states. Zombiesturm (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Texas was the first independent republic to join the Union, and its constitution of 1845 and its negotiations for admission allowed it to both secede and to form as many as five states within its boundaries.

It never split into separate states, but it did secede during the Civil War. After the Civil War it decided to rejoin the Union and was required to submit a new constitution, which was replaced once, and is now considered the most complex of US state constitutions.

I couldn't find the actual text, but I would assume readmission was only allowed with the clauses regarding the right to leave the union unilaterally or to attempt to split itself into separate states (as ratified by treaty upon entry, before the Civil War) still intact.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a link to the text of the current constitution. If someone can, that would be a big help.

μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If only there was a website which summarized information on general topics where one could look this sort of thing up. See Constitution of Texas and this page from the Texas legislature which is linked to from it. Tevildo (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]