Devil's advocate - why shouldn't states be allowed to secede?

[BushOut06]

Forget about the root causes of the Civil War. That's an entirely different debate, and we could all spend plenty of time arguing that. I'm talking about the principle of secession itself. I forget what decision it was, but the SCOTUS ruled that secession is unconstitutional. After all, the US Constitution doesn't make any provisions for a state to leave the Union, does it?

Can anyone think of any situation whereby a state (or group of states) might want to attempt secession? I know there has been talk of secession at one time or another by some New Englander states, as well as Texas, as well as some other places in the West, and Hawaii. There has also been talk of Quebec seceding from Canada, although I think that has died down as well.

One the one hand, I am an American first and foremost, and want to see the US succeed (current administration notwithstanding). But we have also been preaching this doctrine of self-determination. We were very adament about this regarding the former Soviet Union, basically demanding that the Baltic states be allowed to choose their own path and secede.

Just something to throw out there for people to chew on a bit

[Tom Joad]

1. They should at least be allowed to succeed.

[mitchtv]

2. expulsion should be allowed, too

there are a few, we could do without

[Marie26]

3. That defeats the whole concept of a United States of America. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

7. The original concept was of united sovereign states, who

voluntarily entered into a confederation of States, called the United States.

No where do the articles say that once in, a state cannot voluntarily leave.

Of course , the constitution says no search without a warrent, but we know the facts on the ground are quite different than what's printed on the paper.

[JVS]

11. The original concept sucks

[SaveElmer]

17. Doesn't say they can either...

And the pre-amble is "We the People," which is the way most in the north, and many in the South read it. Nullification failed in 1832 and the South began to defend slavery as a positive good, using it as a hook upon which to unite the south during the War.

[John Q. Citizen]

35. The north was glad to have the cotton for their mills. They didn't

stop buying cotton because it was produced by slaves, anymore than Walmart (or many consumers) stop buying consumer goods produced by virtual slave labor today.

The cotton gin was what really ended slavery. Slavery became uneconomical to produce cotton.

The civil war mainly resulted from tariff laws passed by the population heavy North (read more members of congress) that economically required the South to ship their cotton to the North instead of to mills in Europe.

Am I arguing in favor of slavery? Absolutely not. Just attempting to debunk the popular myth that Slavery was the central issue of the Civil War.

Slavery was an issue. Just not the central issue. Lincoln's plan was to round up blacks and send them back to Africa. He no more saw blacks as citizens (or as people) than did the Southern Plantation owners.

[SaveElmer]

42. Slavery was the central issue...and the South made it so...

The tarriffs are what caused the nullification crisis in 1832. Because of a lack of unity in the South, many, led by John C. Calhoun, began an aggressive defense of slavery as a way of unifying the south. Fact is, in the antebellum south up to this time, slavery was viewed as a necessary evil.

Most of the revenue generating tarriffs, as opposed to those designed to protect local markets were phased out. In fact, England was so dependent on southern cotton that it was hoped by Southern leaders up to the end that they would intercede.

It is true that Lincoln originally support colonization, not because he hated blacks, but he viewed it as a way to preserve the union. By the end of the war Lincoln was advocating suffrage for blacks.

[John Q. Citizen]

61. I stand corrected, and

educated by someone who obviously knows more about it than I did.

Thanks.

[MadHound]

46. Then I suggest that you go reread your history texts

For what you are saying is pretty much wrong.

The invention of the cotton gin is really what facilitated slavery's resurgence in the early 1800s. Slavery had been dying a slow death before the invention of the cotton gin in 1793. However once the gin was in place, it allowed much greater processing of cotton, thus making cotton an economically viable crop in the South, and thus the demand for slave labor went way up.

As for as the root cause of the Civil War, it wasn't states' rights, it wasn't taxes or tariffs, it was slavery, plain pure and simple. To discover that, all you have to do is look into the horse's mouth so to speak. Each and every state that left the Union state, either in the preamble, or in the first to paragraphs of their articles of seccession that the main reason they are leaving the Union is their "peculiar institution", slavery.

Sorry friend, but the rest of it, taxes, tariffs, states' rights, is all revisionist bullshit to make the South look better after the fact. Read the source documents and it is plain to see that slavery was the reason for the Civil War.

[John Q. Citizen]

58. I did go look it up and you are right and I was wrong. Thanks for the

good info.

Guess I had a bad case of foot in mouth.

[BushOut06]

56. Don't turn this into a debate on the Civil War and slavery, please!

Use a different thread for that. I didn't want this to become a thread debating the causes of the Civil War (or the War Between the States, if you prefer that instead).

[Marie26]

21. Not really

You said below that states should be allowed to secede under the Articles of the Confederation. But the Art. of Conf. are completely useless & meaningless - they were replaced by the Constitution when the United States was formed. It's misleading to cite them as if they prove something. The "confederation of states" concept was really what the weak Art. of Confederations was creating, but that wasn't what ended up happening. The Constitution created a much stronger federal government, & binds the states together in observance of fed. law & authority. The 14th Amendment creates a "national citizenship" for all Americans, not just of individual states. We all have a shared national identity, history, common law, & language. I can't believe we're actually debating this.

[BushOut06]

27. Ironically, it's about freedom

The freedom to stay, the freedom to leave if a state were to choose. Obviously there would be severe repurcussions to a state deciding to become independent. They would instantly lose all federal $$$, although I believe I read somewhere that Texas would still have one of the world's best economies and militaries.

Besides, one can never say never about anything - one never knows what the future might hold, or what dire circumstances might create a desire to secede.

[Aristus]

32. The military presence in Texas, remember, is the U.S. military

presence, not the Texas military. Ft. Hood, Ft. Sam Houston, Camp Bullis, and all those Air Force Bases, are Federal property. If Texas seceded (again), we would get our military property back, with or without a fight.

Remember, that was how the shooting part of the Civil War began; The Federal government refused to abandon its property of Ft. Sumpter, and the Confederates fired on it and its defenders.

[BushOut06]

48. Not necessarily true

I think the figures I was looking at referred to the Texas National Guard - Air and Army. Just taking that into account, Texas would have one of the largest in the world. I think - I could be wrong on this one, so don't hold me to it.

Actually I once thought about writing a novel based on this scenario, whereby Texas seceded from the Union. What would happen with the federal military units within Texas, would the state try to seize those for its own military? It would have been quite an interesting read - but unfortunately, my procrastination got the best of me.

[Marie26]

52. But does that freedom exist?

I understand your point, and it is true that the Constitution doesn't specifically forbide it. It actually isn't even illegal to try to sucede, it's just considered null& void. It's true that the original American Revolution from Britain was a "sucession". In incredibly dire circumstances, maybe people would view it as necessary. However, from a purely practical standpoint, how exactly is this going to happen? The United States has the biggest military in the world - most countries, even w/their own military, are afraid to stand up to us. The Oregon National Guard isn't going to cut it - and another poster pointed out that the state would also lose all federal military & financial resources. It's pretty clear that it's not permitted under federal law, and practically, it couldn't happen. So... this just seems like idle speculation.

[BushOut06]

60. Okay - here's how it could happen

Let's say you're the governor of Texas, and your legislature has just voted to secede. You want to be able to carry that out, but you know damned well that your National Guard units can't stand up to the might of the US military. What do you do?

First, you withdraw all National Guard units that are currently overseas. You seize control of all US military installations within the state. For a state like Texas, that's a very considerable number. You now have a very sizable military - and probably some nuclear weapons. Pantex, the final assembly point for our nuclear weapons, is located in Amarillo, TX.

Having accomplished this, you negotiate with the federal government. For example, if the US allows you to secede, they can retain control of a few bases within Texas, or be allowed to reclaim their equipment. The nukes are a biggie. Use those to your advantage, much the way the former Soviet republics used their nukes as a bargaining chip.

It could be done.

[bunkerbuster1]

59. um, did you ever read the articles of confederation?

including that bit about it being a "perpetual union?"

Not the best case for secession to be made. not that I can't make a case for voluntary, negotiated secession (I can, at a certain level).

[John Q. Citizen]

62. Good points. I've had a bad run of

foot in mouth on this thread, but the up side is I've learned a lot.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. They should be allowed to secede, according to the articles of

confederation.

However, the facts on the ground (as in Lincoln and the Civil War) preclude the legality of secession.

[BushOut06]

6. Those rules are determined by the victor

I dont think it was very legal for the colonies to secede from Great Britain either.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. We seem to be in agreement.

[petronius]

16. I had the impression that people like Jeff Davis et al.

were not tried for treason after the war for that very reason - the federal government was concerned that the court would find that secession was in fact legal and that the case for preserving the union was weak. That finding would have had some pretty severe political repercussions...

[BushOut06]

5. Okay, here's a scenario - try this on for size

Here's a worst-case, hypothetical example: Let's say that Chimp does somehow manage to remain president (er, dictator) after '08. Whether it's some terrorist attack that he uses to assume emergency powers, whatever - just go with me here. He continues to suspend civil liberties, engaging in foreign wars, etc. Then let's say that a few states decide they've had enough, that the United States no longer represents what it once did, and want to start from scratch.

Should they be allowed to secede under this scenario? Would Dubya use his own military against these states? I can just imagine the chaos that would result from several states pulling their National Guard units from overseas.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[terryg11]

9. Federal policies not inline at all with state goals

Some examples could be a state going out and securing natural gas or oil from a country that the US doesn't trade with. I believe NJ or somebody made a deal with Venezuala (?). IF the situation was dire enough for that state they might talk about it.

If say, California decided it was better for the state of Cali to legalize growing and selling of marijuana for whatever reason and the fed. government imposed it's will of it being illegal, maybe they would think about it.

It would most likely have to be a combination of a few things at least and money most likely the big issue with some value issues thrown in for good measure


Not for seccession, the US should really stick together, even if it means getting mor control back to the states on nonsecurity issues

[serryjw]

10. Sure, there is good news at the end of the rainbow

We can secede from the Union to PRESERVE freedom! The Southern states couldn't because their reasons were to enslave people NOT perpetual freedom. The truth is we are getting very close. It certainly could be argued that he is making chop suey of OUR civil liberties.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. According to my Texan husband

when his state entered the Union, they signed a treaty that would allow Texas to break into five different states if they wanted to, so as to get more Senators for the region. He also asserted that Texas, since it was once a sovereign country, retained the right to secede. If that's the case, then CA and VT could too, I would think, since at one time in history both places were, to some extent, independent countries.

[BushOut06]

15. I've never heard of CA or VT being independent countries

The only ones I knew about were Texas and Hawaii. Actually Hawaii would probably have a very good case for secession if they ever chose to do so.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Thanks for reminding me of Hawaii

during the Mexican War, I believe, John C. Fremont led an expedition to CA, and got some Americans to back his takeover of perhaps only one fort. They called it the Bear Flag Republic, and the state flag is a replica of the flag they used.

Vermont was claimed by both NY and NH and some of the natives got a bit miffed and declared themselves independent for a spell. I think that's how they were admitted as a seperate state - the 14th- ca. 1791.

Help me, folks, who know their history a bit better than I do!

Neither CA nor VT ever had an independent legislature, etc, like TX and HI, though.

[TX-RAT]

26. You are correct

Hell! we even had our own Navy
And i believe were the only state that fly's it's state flag at the same height as the US flag 20 ft. All others are required to fly at 17ft. We're the only one's who's capital building is taller than DC's. We signed those into the deal when we came aboard.

[davidinalameda]

64. California was a republic after being freed from Mexico

Cali was independent for 2 years

[pitohui]

14. because some of us have oil

i tell you what, louisiana would have been gone in a shot in the 70s if we were allowed to -- and we'd be a rich small nation now instead of a bankrupt state

the way we are exploited for our oil, the way we are willing to produce and refine the oil and chemicals, and the crap treatment we get in return, it's just disgraceful

doing the 70s oil crisis, we (w. texas) were providing the nation's oil, yet we were 49th on the list to get gas at our service stations

just one example, i could give a million more

california don't wanna drill, florida don't wanna, northeast coast don't wanna

fine

but if we do the hard dirty work of the nation that keeps you fueled and fed, i'm damn well sick of hearing people then ask why we live here

ok, rant over, and this site is by far better than most, many sites are just full up w. ignorant yahoos that don't see the value of louisiana and don't want us to rebuild

and congress is stalling us

and fema well everyone knows that story

we would have better off to be our own nation and to have kept the profits close to home from our production, so we'd have our own $$$ in event of catastrophe

instead our state is broke and we have to beg, altho we (along w. texas) are responsible for keeping you warm and fed

it really makes you sick sometimes

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. Do you think that as an independent nation

the multinational petroleum companies would have cut you a better deal than they did? How sure are you that any good deals LA could get would go to the benefit of the people and not into some corrupt politician's pockets? The rest of the US has their share of them-how about LA?

[NoPasaran]

22. Corrupt politicians in Louisiana?

I don't believe I've ever heard of such a thing! :sarcasm:

[BushOut06]

24. LOL - glad it wasn't me that brought that up ;)

I was thinking it - didn't want to come out and say it! I think you could make a case for corrupt politicians anywhere, however - just that in the Deep South, we tend to have more than our fair share.

[KamaAina]

65. Say it, pito! You could also add:

The grain exports that allow us (for the time being) to pay for all the Chinese stuff in our stores go through Louisiana ports.

The chemicals that go into, well, pretty much everything. The plastics we use to package, well, pretty much everything. I often used to wonder why a state that gives so much gets so little in return.

i'm damn well sick of hearing people then ask why we live here

Some of us are considering coming back -- yes, even from Hawai'i. I will be speaking with someone later in the week...

[NoPasaran]

20. In the case of the Baltic States

They had been independent countries following World War One and were annexed by the USSR in 1940. The US never recognized their annexation. Also, the Soviet constitution explicitly recognized the right of the Union Republics to secede, although anyone advocating such in action in reality ended up in the gulag, if not shot.

[BushOut06]

23. I understand that, but it's still the principle involved here

For all intents and purposes, those countries were as much a part of the Soviet Union as were the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, etc. Besides, the US didn't always exist as it stands now either ;)

I also understand there are differences and exceptions to this rule. For instance we aren't really advocating self-determination for Chechnya or Kurdistan, and we're treading very lightly on the issue of Taiwanese independence (for obvious political reasons).

[ProfessorGAC]

25. I Have A Simple Take On It

There is nothing in the Constitution about leaving. Once you're signed on, that's it. You're in for good. If the founders wanted a provision for a state changing its mind, it would be in there. They thought about a lot of important things. At the very least, we'd need an ammendment to allow it.
The Professor

[BushOut06]

29. Again, it's the victors who determine the rules

Can you give me any British law that allowed the colonies to revolt and declare their independence? And of course the SCOTUS was going to rule in favor of the Union - can you imagine if they had come down in favor of the Confederacy after the Civil War? There might have been another civil war if states had thought they could get away with it.

[ProfessorGAC]

31. I'm Not Looking For Prior Precedent

Remember that the British law is irrelevant because they sent troops to stop us and couldn't. So, the law doesn't matter. We weren't ALLOWED to leave either.

However, given that perspective, if the founders thought leaving the union was a viable option, they would provided for it. They knew that we had a war because there was no provision in British law for colonial break-away. If they beleived that provision was acceptable, it would have been in there.
The Professor

[BushOut06]

38. Hmmm...read the writings of Thomas Jefferson

It is quite interesting. On the one hand, he does seem to imply that revolution is a viable method to address gross governmental abuses of power. What was it he said about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants? Knowing this, the founders did not incorporate a method of leaving. Either they didn't believe that states should be allowed, or they took it for granted that they should (originally the states did reserve most of the powers, and the federal gov't was quite limited). I doubt they ever envisioned the federal government ever being as strong as it is now.

This is why it's so debatable, because it's not quite that cut-and-clear.

[ProfessorGAC]

45. You're Switching Gears Now

There's a difference between simple secession and revolution. If someone is willing to fight to get out, there's no issue with law at all. It's never lawful to shoot at the governmental authority. But, sometimes it's the only proper recourse.

But, that's a different issue. You asked originally if there's a reason why a state can't secede. But, revolution is not simple secession, because it assumes that it's NOT ok to secede and requires armed conflict to propagate.

That seems to be a completely different issue. When the issues are that disparate, of course it's not cut and dried. It's not the same thing.
The Professor

[BushOut06]

50. Agreed, just looking at the different approaches

One approach would be revolution, whereby you try to change the form of government from one to another - or at the very least, change the leadership (although would that be a revolution or a coup?). In a revolution, you're still left with the same country.

Secession would create a separate country. I think it would really depend on the circumstances. Which is why I think Hawaii would have a much easier time seceding. If the federal government allowed a state to secede peacefully, maybe through some agreement, that might work. In this case, perhaps the US would allow Hawaii to secede in exchange for keeping the land that Pearl Harbor is situated on - much like Guantanamo Bay is United States territory.

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. This is settled law

Texas v. White

[Marie26]

30. Thanks for the link

"The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Sounds pretty cut & dried.

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. My Constitutional Law professor would be proud that I remembered that case

Unfortunatley I often have difficulty remembering where my keys are.

[BushOut06]

33. That decision was in 1869 - less than 4 years after the end of the war

I'm sure there was considerable political pressure on the SCOTUS to decide the way they did. Besides, we all know that no SCOTUS ruling is beyond reexamination - why else are we still debating Roe v Wade?

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. I doubt that they will ever overtun Roe

They will simply create exceptions which will make it less and less effective.

[BushOut06]

43. But the mere fact that they could overturn it proves my point

Whether it will ever happen or not, the fact is that it could be overturned. I'm sure there are other SCOTUS decisions that have been overturned at one point or another, although I dont know offhand. I'm sure that if you were to look at SCOTUS cases involving civil rights, I'm sure you could probably find at least a few that were eventually overturned.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. Plessy v. Ferguson was essentiall overturned

It happens, but it is very rare.

[Marie26]

54. So this Supreme Court is going to overturn this case? nt

[BushOut06]

57. Didn't say that at all

Honestly, I don't see any Supreme Court overruling that decision, primarily for political reasons. That being said, just because the Supreme Court makes a ruling, doesn't mean it's a correct one. There have been any number of bad SCOTUS rulings over the years (Dred Scott is probably the most well-known case, but we also have the newer emminent domain case).

[Cleita]

34. What we need is a new Constitutional Congress.

We need our governors to get together and make a new constitution. There is nothing treasonous or subversive about it. They need to draw up a new document, keeping the good parts of the old one and updating it.

We need a better definition of the powers of the executive office, of whom, how and why we declare war. We need a definitive statement on human rights, such as many other countries have that state access to health care and other life sustaining products and services are a human right. Well, there are many other things that should be addressed as well like voting reform.

Then when they have crafted a document that they like and agree on, it needs to be put up for a vote of the people. Forget Congress, forget the Supreme Court, just the vote of all American citizens stating how they want their country run.

There is nothing treasonous about this. It's merely the people excersing their right to vote in a better and improved government, or not to, and continue with the document that we have had for the last 200 years.

[Marie26]

36. We can already do that - through amendments. nt

[Cleita]

44. Ammendments go through Congress and the President

before they become law. Making a new constitution needs to go through the states and the people alone to institute a new form of government bypassing the rule of the federal government.

If such a thing were to pass the approval of the people, the old Congress, Executive Office and Supreme Court would step down after their terms are through, and the new form of government would take over in a gradual change.

We are having a Constitutional crisis now and it's up to the people to decide how their government will be shaped, no one else.

Politicians today seem to have forgotten that they serve the people. It's time to remind them of that.

[Solon]

37. More recent example, since Civil War: Conch Republic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic

http://www.conchrepublic.com/

They have better diplomatic relations with the rest of the world than the national government right now, that's pretty sad if you think about it. They were even invited to the OAS a couple of times. So far, no response from the national government on the "Secession".

[BushOut06]

40. Marketing gimmick - nothing more, really

Key West does take pride in it's 'Conch Republic' status. It did address a real concern, mainly US Customs searching people coming from Key West to the "mainland". But for the most part, it's a marketing gimmick.

Key West is a very nice place, however. Actually I'm getting married there in a few months :party: :toast: :loveya:

[Solon]

47. That's cool, buts its fun regardless, and the federal government's

lack of response is somewhat interesting in a way. I mean, if Key West could declare "Independence" and suffer no consequences, then, well, anybody could, perhaps even larger areas like states. Right now, if you think about it, the only thing that can keep the United States together is hot wind, the Military is too busy right now, and no citizen, I think, would really tolerate another civil war, for any reason, so they would most likely just let a state or territory go. What else could they do, threaten to nuke them?

[BushOut06]

53. A lot of it would depend on the circumstances

And the political climate at the time. See some of my above posts regarding Hawaii. If Hawaii wanted to leave, and didn't mind workign out some deal with the US regarding Pearl Harbor, that would probably be a lot easier to accomodate than a state leaving belligerantly.

[Solon]

63. Yeah, Hawaii already has an independence movement after all...

Another candidate would be Puerto Rico, even though its not a state but a commonwealth territory. Guam and the US Virgin Islands are other examples. In fact, PR had a vote up to keep the status quo, become a state, or declare independence, they chose to keep the status quo.

ON EDIT: Interesting little fact, I one time got a stamp from about 100 years ago, the interesting thing about it is where it was issued from, and who issued it. It was a US stamp from the US territory of the Phillipines, another territory that we "allowed" to declare independence, after much bloodshed.

[MadHound]

51. No, for a number of reasons

First off, how do you divvy up communal US property? Forts, weapons, nuclear missles, etc, how can we divide them up equitably, or should we divide them up at all. Second, how do you divide up resources? For instance, California gets a lot of its water from the Hoover Dam. If California leaves, how do you handle interstate resources? Third, what are you going to do about the national debt? States that enjoyed the benefits that this debt brought them should not be allowed to skip out on their share. Yet saddling a brand new nation with a couple of trillion dollars worth of debt will lead to its immediate ruin.

And finally, and most importantly, secession leads down that long slippery slope to the complete Balkanization of the North American continent. One group of state leaves the Union and forms their own country. Then a smaller group of states leaves that new country over something or another, and forms yet another country. And so and so forth until you have fifty or more little countries fighting amongst ourselve for no good reason, with everybody's economy in the tank, and Lord knows, somebody somewhere would drop a nuke or five on this continent, and voila, perpetual war. No thank you.

[gordontron]

55. as lincoln said:

"This country belongs to the people and whenever they shall grow weary of their government they can exercise their constitutional right to amend it, or revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."


http://www.fortliberty.org/quotes/quotes-activism.shtml