[Kerrigan]

I was reading today about how a majority of Scots want independence from England, and how this is imminently possible, if the Scots elect the SNP in their devolved government. They could then put forward a referendum and vote on complete independence.

Could an American state government do the same thing? Obviously this has been tried before, unsuccessfully, but if English common law allows for it, then shouldn't American law provide for it to?

We've seen how the federal government can be inept at handling some of the most basic needs of states, and it has also created a dangerous situation with regards to outsourcing service industry jobs and negotiating with China, leading to an elimination of manufacturing jobs and a trade imbalance.

What exactly is the reason then that a state couldn't just leave the US if a majority of the population wanted to?

[Atomic Rooster]

Well some tried a while back and Lincoln killed most of them separatists.

Vermont brings it up once in a while. Do a search of Vermont separation.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I was reading today about how a majority of Scots want independence from England, and how this is imminently possible, if the Scots elect the SNP in their devolved government. They could then put forward a referendum and vote on complete independence.

Could an American state government do the same thing? Obviously this has been tried before, unsuccessfully, but if English common law allows for it, then shouldn't American law provide for it to?

We've seen how the federal government can be inept at handling some of the most basic needs of states, and it has also created a dangerous situation with regards to outsourcing service industry jobs and negotiating with China, leading to an elimination of manufacturing jobs and a trade imbalance.

What exactly is the reason then that a state couldn't just leave the US if a majority of the population wanted to?

No. It is not possible. I can't tell you why it isn't. But it just isn't.

[Kerrigan]

Hey, very informative answers guys!

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by marden 

No. It is not possible. I can't tell you why it isn't. But it just isn't.

Ah, come on tell us. No fair keeping secrets.

[Kerrigan]

Abe won't tell us his presidential secrets.

[Atomic Rooster]

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

Scroll down to politics. Dunno if it'll help much.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Abe won't tell us his presidential secrets.

No, it isn't like that. I really don't know. But I just strongly believe it's impossible.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Canada has handled this quite a few times with Quebec, as most of you probably know. However, it's always been voted against. I don't even know how our legislation handles this, either...maybe lpkmckenna would know more?

Either way, I can't see how there would be no mechanism to leave America should some area wish to leave. But maybe it just hasn't been a serious issue yet.

greg

[HackManDan]

I would think that if a state decided to break from the Union, it would be considered an act of rebellion against the federal government. Regardless if the decision was made democratically, declaring yourself no longer under the authority of a legitimate government is a de facto insurrection. The Constitution gives Congress the power to utilize the “militia” to suppress insurrections, and to suspend habeas corpus in “Cases of Rebellion.”

Therefore, the logic has always been that seceding from the Union is an act of rebellion against it, and hence, the federal government is empowered to put down any attempt to do so.

[Dakar²]

While its statistically improbable, I think the legislation is available to try.

[Big Mac]

It would be possible to put such an initiative on the ballot - and even to have it pass. But it would violate the US Constitution. The states entered into the Union, but there is no constitutional framework for them to leave. Some southerners will disagree, and we did fight a civil war over the issue.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Canada has handled this quite a few times with Quebec, as most of you probably know. However, it's always been voted against. I don't even know how our legislation handles this, either...maybe lpkmckenna would know more?

Either way, I can't see how there would be no mechanism to leave America should some area wish to leave. But maybe it just hasn't been a serious issue yet.

There is no mechanism in the Constitution of Canada that recognizes the right of provinces to secede. Quebec has had two referendums on separation, but both failed. Regardless, if Quebec actually voted to secede it wouldn't give them the power to do so.

Quebec can have as many referendums on the matter as they wish. I don't care. It's about as valid as them voting for a new Pope or declaring that the Earth is a cube.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Ahhhhh, that's what I'd heard but I didn't know for sure. So, the real issue is then: if a province or state democratically shows that they want to leave their country, does the country allow this seemingly democratic move, or use force (eg. Army) and/or coercion (eg. threatening trade sanctions) to stop them?

Wouldn't disallowing a democratic request to leave be against the principles of Western society? I tend to think it probably would be. After all, it doesn't make much sense to say that there is no mechanism to leave the country; it is unreasonable and certainly unhistorical to think that any given nation – and especially large ones with political, economic and geographical devisions like Canada or the United States – will "last forever" so to speak.

I guess what I'm saying is: if Quebec or Vermont or Newfoundland or Alberta or California democratically decides to strike out on their own, should the federal response be "STFU, sit down or we'll sit you down" or "okay, we can work out something to make this beneficial to everyone"; and, if it's the former, is this anathema to modern Western free-market capitalist democracy?



greg

[probablecause]

I'm not a Constitutional expert but I seem to remember that the Consititution guarantees everyone in the country to be part of a Republican(not, as in the party) form of goverment. If a state were allowed to leave, even if it voted to do so, then a Republican form of government could not be assured for them in the future. It's a technicality.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It would be possible to put such an initiative on the ballot - and even to have it pass. But it would violate the US Constitution. The states entered into the Union, but there is no constitutional framework for them to leave. Some southerners will disagree, and we did fight a civil war over the issue.

That's near what I'm thinking. Some kind of bill or amendment would have to be proposed, the 2/3rds of congress would have to pass it and then it would have to go to the states, correct?

So essentially, 2/3rds of all states would have to let you go.

If my logic here has any legs.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by HackManDan 

I would think that if a state decided to break from the Union, it would be considered an act of rebellion against the federal government. Regardless if the decision was made democratically, declaring yourself no longer under the authority of a legitimate government is a de facto insurrection. The Constitution gives Congress the power to utilize the “militia” to suppress insurrections, and to suspend habeas corpus in “Cases of Rebellion.”

Therefore, the logic has always been that seceding from the Union is an act of rebellion against it, and hence, the federal government is empowered to put down any attempt to do so.

Of course, the founders are well documented as stating that the States joined the Union by choice and should be able to leave by choice.

Lincoln was of the mind that the C.S.A. had never left that Union and that he was fighting to prevent them from doing so.

There have been two revolutions in this country. One to gain independence from an oppressive England, a second to gain independence from an oppressive Washington.

None of you are willing to take bets on the best of 2 out of 3?

[probablecause]

A state or region leaving the Union is not terribly far fetched. Any large country that has a big enough cultural divide has that potential. I think there are plenty of self centered ethnic and/or political groups here that would jump at the chance to declare independence thinking they could govern better. No country lasts forever and I think the U.S. will breakup eventually.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dakar� 

That's near what I'm thinking. Some kind of bill or amendment would have to be proposed, the 2/3rds of congress would have to pass it and then it would have to go to the states, correct?

So essentially, 2/3rds of all states would have to let you go.

I have no doubt that 2/3 of the rest of us would be more than willing to let Florida go.

BTW, there's a US Supreme Court case during the Civil War era saying, from what I understand, that states cannot secede unless, as dakar says, the other states agree.

[Dakar²]

I don't know. Any state leaving would be a massive swing in electoral power, IMO.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

BTW, there's a US Supreme Court case during the Civil War era saying, from what I understand, that states cannot secede unless, as dakar says, the other states agree.

My initial reaction was the same as what this link says, and what Dakar said: since there's no mechanism for any state leaving the union in the Constitution, it's not possible except by modifying the Constitution. Which means that most of the country would have to agree with a state's wish to secede, and pass an Amendment allowing it, in order for it to be done peacefully.

I wonder if we could pass an amendment to kick a state out of the union that had 2/3 support of the states, but not the support of the state subject ot the amendment. Florida, I'm talking to you!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Of course, the founders are well documented as stating that the States joined the Union by choice and should be able to leave by choice.

Sources? I know that influential founders favored adding the option for states to nullify unconstitutional federal laws - as Madison and Jefferson advocated in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions - but I'm not aware of their support for secession. The words of the Declaration of Independence concerning the dissolution of a tyrannical government are the only things that come to mind, but that does not speak directly to individual states severing their connection to each other.

The Constitution was worded very carefully (as you know), with considerable debate and deliberation. If there had been strong concensus in favor of allowing states to leave the Union, it is my opinon that such a provision would have been included.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Sources? I know that influential founders favored adding the option for states to nullify unconstitutional federal laws - as Madison and Jefferson advocated in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions - but I'm not aware of their support for secession. The words of the Declaration of Independence concerning the dissolution of a tyrannical government are the only things that come to mind, but that does not speak directly to individual states severing their connection to each other.

The Constitution was worded very carefully (as you know), with considerable debate and deliberation. If there had been strong concensus in favor of allowing states to leave the Union, it is my opinon that such a provision would have been included.

In his 1801 First Inaugural Address one of the first things Thomas Jefferson did was to support the right of secession. "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form," the author of the Declaration of Independence said, "let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who had served as George Washington’s chief of staff, his secretary of war and secretary of state, as well as a congressman and senator from Massachusetts. "The principles of our Revolution [of 1776] point to the remedy – a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of he East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government," announced Senator James Hillhouse.

The New England secession movement gained momentum for an entire decade, but ultimately failed at the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814. Throughout this struggle, wrote historian Edward Powell in Nullification and Secession in the United States, "the right of a state to withdraw from the Union was not disputed."

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

There have been two revolutions in this country. One to gain independence from an oppressive England, a second to gain independence from an oppressive Washington.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

My initial reaction was the same as what this link says, and what Dakar said: since there's no mechanism for any state leaving the union in the Constitution, it's not possible except by modifying the Constitution.

This is an incorrect reading of the Constitution.

The Constitution enumerates some rights by declaring those which it is paramount that Congress not infringe upon.

It also says that all other rights belong to the States and to the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So by way of not including it in the Constitution, it is a right the States possess. Or did until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Come on, the slave owners were the ones truly oppressed by the government, not the slaves!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Come on, the slave owners were the ones truly oppressed by the government, not the slaves!

at your joke and vmarks.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Come on, the slave owners were the ones truly oppressed by the government, not the slaves!

You oversimplify.

Some say simplistically that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Unfortunately, there is no "simple" reason. The causes of the war were a complex series of events, including slavery, that began long before the first shot was fired. Competing nationalisms, political turmoil, the definition of freedom, the preservation of the Union, the fate of slavery and the structure of our society and economy could all be listed as significant contributing factors in America's bloodiest conflict.

Complaints of Georgians

Many of the problems Georgians saw more than one hundred fifty years ago are being reiterated today. The "oppressive" federal government. High taxes(tariffs before the war). A growing government unwilling to listen to law abiding citizens. Sound familiar? They were complaints levied from 1816 on in Georgia.

As industry in the North expanded it looked towards southern markets, rich with cash from the lucrative agricultural business, to buy the North's manufactured goods. However, it was often cheaper for the South to purchase the goods abroad. In order to "protect" the northern industries Jackson slapped a tariff on many of the imported goods that could be manufactured in the North. When South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union, Jackson ordered federal troops to Charleston. A secession crisis was averted when Congress revised the Tariff of Abominations in February 1833.

Southerners abolished the African slave trade in the Confederate Constitution.

-- http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Come on, the slave owners were the ones truly oppressed by the government, not the slaves!

Only a fool would believe that it was all based on slavery.

[Kevin]

I think both "sides" were in the wrong. But hey that is just me.

[macintologist]

Of course secession should be legal. If the CSA had peacefully succeeded a lot of the social problems we had in the 20th century would never have comet o pass.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You oversimplify.

Some say simplistically that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Unfortunately, there is no "simple" reason. The causes of the war were a complex series of events, including slavery, that began long before the first shot was fired. Competing nationalisms, political turmoil, the definition of freedom, the preservation of the Union, the fate of slavery and the structure of our society and economy could all be listed as significant contributing factors in America's bloodiest conflict.

Complaints of Georgians

Many of the problems Georgians saw more than one hundred fifty years ago are being reiterated today. The "oppressive" federal government. High taxes(tariffs before the war). A growing government unwilling to listen to law abiding citizens. Sound familiar? They were complaints levied from 1816 on in Georgia.

As industry in the North expanded it looked towards southern markets, rich with cash from the lucrative agricultural business, to buy the North's manufactured goods. However, it was often cheaper for the South to purchase the goods abroad. In order to "protect" the northern industries Jackson slapped a tariff on many of the imported goods that could be manufactured in the North. When South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union, Jackson ordered federal troops to Charleston. A secession crisis was averted when Congress revised the Tariff of Abominations in February 1833.

Gee, that's all very fascinating. Are you familiar with the forest/trees analogy?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Southerners abolished the African slave trade in the Confederate Constitution.

Did they now? Then why did Jefferson bother doing it in 1808?

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Only a fool would believe that it was all based on slavery.

The South attempted to secede because of the Emancipation Proclamation. Only a fool believes otherwise.

[Uncle Skeleton]

My 10th grade history teacher told us that Texas only agreed to join the union on condition that it could leave later on if it wanted to, and that this provision is still valid today (but only for Texas, because it was the only state that was its own country before joining the US). I never tried to verify it, and this guy wasn't the most believable man in the world; on the other hand he was right more often than he was wrong.

[Spliffdaddy]

^

yes, it is my understanding that Texas is the only state that can legally 'unjoin' itself from the United States.

[Face Ache]

After Iraq, I'm convinced Hawaii could totally kick the US' ass if they wanted to.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

After Iraq, I'm convinced Hawaii could totally kick the US' ass if they wanted to.

After Iraq it is pretty clear Wyoming would have a decent chance.

V

[houstonmacbro]

a lot of texans believe we can seceed, but we can't. read here.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

My 10th grade history teacher told us that Texas only agreed to join the union on condition that it could leave later on if it wanted to, and that this provision is still valid today (but only for Texas, because it was the only state that was its own country before joining the US). I never tried to verify it, and this guy wasn't the most believable man in the world; on the other hand he was right more often than he was wrong.

Texas was in fact the only state to incorporate as a country before joining the US; it was called the Republic of Texas, if I'm not mistaken. As far as that goes, your teacher was right. However, I find it very difficult to believe that it could have gotten permission to secede. Even if it did, it basically lost that permission after the Civil War.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Texas was in fact the only state to incorporate as a country before joining the US; it was called the Republic of Texas, if I'm not mistaken. As far as that goes, your teacher was right. However, I find it very difficult to believe that it could have gotten permission to secede. Even if it did, it basically lost that permission after the Civil War.

Wrong!

Vermont became the 14th state to join the United States, following a 14-year period during and after the Revolutionary War as the independent Republic of Vermont. Vermont is one of only five U.S. states or parts of states to have once been an independent nation, the other four being California, Hawaii, Texas, and the Florida Parishes of Louisiana.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

The South attempted to secede because of the Emancipation Proclamation. Only a fool believes otherwise.

That's amazing.

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war.

That's right, three years AFTER the South's secession.

What you're suggesting is that Jefferson Davis had a time machine.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

That's amazing.

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war.

That's right, three years AFTER the South's secession.

What you're suggesting is that Jefferson Davis had a time machine.

No, Lincoln spoke of emancipation for years before becoming President.

[Kerrigan]

Most people during the Civil War didn't care about slaves and/or slavery. Do you really think that the soldiers who were sent off to die owned slaves? Or that Lincoln would send troops to fight against fellow white anglo protestants over his dedication to equality? Heck, he wanted to send those slaves back to Africa, which suggests that he did not care about their rights as citizens any more than slave owners.

Slavery was part of the issue, but it is too often put forward as the reason for the war. The more logical reason that the war was fought was that the South was rising to power too quickly. The balance of power was about to be shifted, with western territories about to become states which would have been closely tied to the East coast slave states. Add on to this the prospects of a southern transcontinental railroad, those imperial ambitions to expand into the Caribbean, as well as Southern infringements on Northern states' rights (fugitive slave act), and you can see why the North wanted to nip it in the bud, before the South became the dominate regional player in all of America.

[Kevin]

lpkmckenna, I gotta say you've been getting better in here than when you first started coming in this forum. MUCHO improvement.

But vmarks is right in this matter.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No, Lincoln spoke of emancipation for years before becoming President.

Spoke, perhaps. But the fact remains that he did nothing until well after the war started. In fact, many abolitionists of the time left records quoting Lincoln as saying things like "If I could preserve this Union without freeing any slave, I would do it." He wasn't popular among abolitionists for a long time because of that.

[Macrobat]

The war only became "about slavery" with the issuance of the Emancipation Proclmation. The only reason Lincoln even did THAT is because he needed an emotional "hook" to renew the fervor for continuing the war in the face of rising casualties.

There is a reason so many parallels have been made between the Lincoln and Bush presidencies. Instead of continually spouting the "urban legends" that revisionist histories have managed to implant in your heads, you would do well to familiarize yourselves with the run up to and the conduct of the war.

Lincoln used the Army to keep two more states from seceding that wanted to - Maryland and Delaware - the inclusion of which would have given the CSA its 2/3's majority approval of secession. He then used that same Army to create the state of West Virginia - all in order to defeat the supermajority.


The secession was over precisely the reasons vmarks has already cited. The issue of slavery had already been dealt with by the US Congress in allowing even more slave states to enter the union, just that one slave and one free had to enter together, so the vote remained tied.

The oppressive tariffs to protect Northern industry at the expense of the South and further Northern profiteering were the main issues - not slavery.

BTW, just where in Hades do you figure all those slaves came from? The South had no major shipping industry to go to Africa and get them. ALL the slave-traders were NORTHERNERS!

[Big Mac]

Uh, Macrobat, that all sounded good, but can you provide some proof that northerners were supplying slaves to the South? I thought the Constitution banned the slave trade after 1808.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by marden 

I really don't know. But I just strongly believe.

You should start all your post with this.

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The South attempted to secede because of the Emancipation Proclamation. Only a fool believes otherwise.

You didn't pay any attention to vmarks, did you?

[olePigeon]

States are allowed to put forth a request for secession from the Union. However, a supreme court ruling made it nearly impossible as any request now has to be ratified by the other 49 states.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

After Iraq, I'm convinced Hawaii could totally kick the US' ass if they wanted to.

Hawai'i can certainly relate to Iraq.