Not necessarily. It depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about Alaska leaving the US and becoming its own country, then you are correct-- that would be secession.
However, if you are talking about, say, Alaska being the next US, or more generally perhaps just moving the capital of the US to Alaska, then that would correctly be succession.
I say we all act as if people are speaking exactly correctly, and that they are talking about Alaska succeeding. Then we have huge arguments over exactly how Alaska could succeed. Shall it be more oil drilling, or more environmental protection?
Well, The Economist remarked this week that "She has links to the wacky Alaska Independence Party, which wants to secede from the Union." It didn't elaborate on those links.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-09-05 04:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-05 02:31 pm (UTC)However, if you are talking about, say, Alaska being the next US, or more generally perhaps just moving the capital of the US to Alaska, then that would correctly be succession.
I say we all act as if people are speaking exactly correctly, and that they are talking about Alaska succeeding. Then we have huge arguments over exactly how Alaska could succeed. Shall it be more oil drilling, or more environmental protection?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 06:19 pm (UTC)This is, remember, also the woman who thought the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was "good enough for the Founding Fathers."
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 07:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 07:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 07:13 pm (UTC)