Secession Movement in the United States

[Samuraikoku]

I'm not sure why that should matter. I don't see why the Union should be treated like it's the Hotel California.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

[The Emerald Dawn]

There is no procedure for a state to leave the Union. Sorry, there isn't. The Union is perpetual and has been since the Articles of Confederation. All states that were created or joined since the passage of the Constitution knew, or should have known this.

I'm not sure why that should matter. I don't see why the Union should be treated like it's the Hotel California.

We tend to do that when people break the law. Make them stop what they're doing. By force, if necessary. Why should we treat secession as different from any other crime? "I don't want to be in this country anymore" is no more a valid reason to break the law than "I want your TV" is.

So you are willing to use force/kill people, if they refuse to be in the Union? Are you willing to pull the trigger, or just to push the button for the drone strike?

"I, [redacted], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This I swear."

I'll gladly pull the trigger, if they secede violently.

If they wish to leave to another country, I'll help pack.

If they think they're taking part of my country with them, they're loony.

[Armenia Reborn]

Just asking, are you also against all independence movements?
Scottish/Irish etc.

These petitions aren't from people who want to be independent, they're from people who are butt-hurt because their candidate didn't win the presidential election. They aren't being oppressed, not even slightly.

Succession has been threatened quite a bit in the 1800s. It was threatened in the Northeast, the West, and of course the South. The Civil War didn't really solve anything. All it did was raze half the south and use force to say, "You will obey what we deem to be a correct way of life, or we will kill you." The same issues of state-rights vs national government a.k.a anti-federalists vs federalists has never been alleviated.

[The Emerald Dawn]

These petitions aren't from people who want to be independent, they're from people who are butt-hurt because their candidate didn't win the presidential election. They aren't being oppressed, not even slightly.

Succession has been threatened quite a bit in the 1800s. It was threatened in the Northeast, the West, and of course the South. The Civil War didn't really solve anything. All it did was raze half the south and use force to say, "You will obey what we deem to be a correct way of life, or we will kill you." The same issues of state-rights vs national government a.k.a anti-federalists vs federalists has never been alleviated.

We don't have a monarchy.

[Ostroeuropa]

Just asking, are you also against all independence movements?
Scottish/Irish etc.

These petitions aren't from people who want to be independent, they're from people who are butt-hurt because their candidate didn't win the presidential election. They aren't being oppressed, not even slightly.

This sounds exactly like scottish independence.
"Boohoo labour didn't win. Mean tories, we go independent now."

[Armenia Reborn]

[

I'll gladly pull the trigger, if they secede violently.

If they wish to leave to another country, I'll help pack.

If they think they're taking part of my country with them, they're loony.

So, if California decided to succeed through a statewide vote, you'd start killing the people there?

I'm not sure why that should matter. I don't see why the Union should be treated like it's the Hotel California.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

If a state is gonna succeed, no law on the books forbidding them to succeed matters. I'm sure nations in the soviet bloc didn't care about the law that the USSR had regarding their succession.

[Nidaria]

Did some thinking about it. If this did happen I would probably move to a state such as California or new york.

What happens if California or New York secedes? There has been a little bit of talk about it.

[Armenia Reborn]

Succession has been threatened quite a bit in the 1800s. It was threatened in the Northeast, the West, and of course the South. The Civil War didn't really solve anything. All it did was raze half the south and use force to say, "You will obey what we deem to be a correct way of life, or we will kill you." The same issues of state-rights vs national government a.k.a anti-federalists vs federalists has never been alleviated.

We don't have a monarchy.

It does not matter. If people want to succeed then they want to succeed. If enough of them in an area want to succeed, are you going to attempt to stop them by force?

[Farnhamia]

These petitions aren't from people who want to be independent, they're from people who are butt-hurt because their candidate didn't win the presidential election. They aren't being oppressed, not even slightly.

Succession has been threatened quite a bit in the 1800s. It was threatened in the Northeast, the West, and of course the South. The Civil War didn't really solve anything. All it did was raze half the south and use force to say, "You will obey what we deem to be a correct way of life, or we will kill you." The same issues of state-rights vs national government a.k.a anti-federalists vs federalists has never been alleviated.

States do not have rights, states have powers. The people have rights. And I didn't say it never came up. The Civil War did resolve the idea of using force to leave. But really, no, states cannot just up and leave the Union. If these people signing these petitions are so aggrieved, they should have their elected representatives petition Congress to create some way for them to go. That's the only option.

[Samuraikoku]

If a state is gonna succeed, no law on the books forbidding them to succeed matters. I'm sure nations in the soviet bloc didn't care about the law that the USSR had regarding their succession.

It would help you to read.

The Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union, as a State, on the 27th of December, 1845. By this act, the new State, and the people of the new State, were invested with all the rights, and became subject to all the responsibilities and duties of the original States under the Constitution.

From the date of admission until 1861, the State was represented in the Congress of the United States by her senators and representatives, and her relations as a member of the Union remained unimpaired. In that year, acting upon the theory that the rights of a State under the Constitution might be renounced, and her obligations thrown off at pleasure, Texas undertook to sever the bond thus formed, and to break up her constitutional relations with the United States.

On the 1st of February, [n7] a convention, called without authority but subsequently sanctioned by the legislature regularly elected, adopted an ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of Texas and the other States under the Constitution of the United States, whereby Texas was declared to be "a separate and sovereign State," and "her people and citizens" to be "absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the government thereof."

It was ordered by a vote of the convention [n8] and by an act of the legislature [n9] that this ordinance should be submitted to the people, for approval or disapproval, on the 23d of February, 1861.

Without awaiting, however, the decision thus invoked, the convention, on the 4th of February, adopted a resolution designating seven delegates to represent the State in the convention of seceding States at Montgomery, "in order", as the resolution declared,

that the wishes and interests of the people of Texas may be consulted in reference to the constitution and provisional government that may be established by said convention.

Before the passage of this resolution, the convention had [p723] appointed a committee of public safety and adopted an ordinance giving authority to that committee to take measures for obtaining possession of the property of the United States in Texas, and for removing the National troops from her limits. The members of the committee, and all officers and agents appointed or employed by it, were sworn to secrecy and to allegiance to the State. [n10] Commissioners were at once appointed, with instructions to repair to the headquarters of General Twiggs, then representing the United States in command of the department, and to make the demands necessary for the accomplishment of the purposes of the committee. A military force was organized in support of these demands, and an arrangement was effected with the commanding general by which the United States troops were engaged to leave the State, and the forts and all the public property not necessary to the removal of the troops were surrendered to the commissioners. [n11]

These transactions took place between the 2d and the 18th of February, and it was under these circumstances that the vote upon the ratification or rejection of the ordinance of secession was taken on the 23d of February. It was ratified by a majority of the voters of the State.

The convention, which had adjourned before the vote was taken, reassembled on the 2d of March and instructed the delegates already sent to the Congress of the seceding States to apply for admission into the confederation and to give the adhesion of Texas to its provisional constitution.

It proceeded also to make the changes in the State constitution which this adhesion made necessary. The words "United States" were stricken out wherever they occurred and the words "Confederate States" substituted, and the members of the legislature, and all officers of the State, were required by the new constitution to take an oath of fidelity to the constitution and laws of the new confederacy.

Before, indeed, these changes in the constitution had been [p724] completed, the officers of the State had been required to appear before the committee and take an oath of allegiance to the Confederate States.

The governor and secretary of state, refusing to comply, were summarily ejected from office.

The members of the legislature, which had also adjourned and reassembled on the 18th of March, were more compliant. They took the oath and proceeded, on the 8th of April, to provide by law for the choice of electors of president and vice-president of the Confederate States.

The representatives of the State in the Congress of the United States were withdrawn, and, as soon as the seceded States became organized under a constitution, Texas sent senators and representatives to the Confederate Congress.

In all respects, so far as the object could be accomplished by ordinances of the convention, by acts of the legislature, and by votes of the citizens, the relations of Texas to the Union were broken up and new relations to a new government were established for them.

The position thus assumed could only be maintained by arms, and Texas accordingly took part, with the other Confederate States, in the war of the rebellion which these events made inevitable. During the whole of that war, there was no governor, or judge, or any other State officer in Texas who recognized the National authority. Nor was any officer of the United States permitted to exercise any authority whatever under the National government within the limits of the State except under the immediate protection of the National military forces.

Did Texas, in consequence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?

It is needless to discuss at length the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause regarded by herself as sufficient is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that

the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,

and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." [n12] Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States. [p726]

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred.

[The Emerald Dawn]

We don't have a monarchy.

It does not matter. If people want to succeed then they want to succeed. If enough of them in an area want to succeed, are you going to attempt to stop them by force?

SECEDE

SUCCEED

These are two words, that have nothing in common. Look them up.

[Armenia Reborn]

It does not matter. If people want to succeed then they want to succeed. If enough of them in an area want to succeed, are you going to attempt to stop them by force?

SECEDE

SUCCEED

These are two words, that have nothing in common. Look them up.

Grammar nazi attempt to point out the Homonym mistake I made. Regardless, you get the point.

EDIT: Correction that is not a homonym as the words are not pronounced in the same exact manner.

[Armenia Reborn]

Succession has been threatened quite a bit in the 1800s. It was threatened in the Northeast, the West, and of course the South. The Civil War didn't really solve anything. All it did was raze half the south and use force to say, "You will obey what we deem to be a correct way of life, or we will kill you." The same issues of state-rights vs national government a.k.a anti-federalists vs federalists has never been alleviated.

States do not have rights, states have powers. The people have rights. And I didn't say it never came up. The Civil War did resolve the idea of using force to leave. But really, no, states cannot just up and leave the Union. If these people signing these petitions are so aggrieved, they should have their elected representatives petition Congress to create some way for them to go. That's the only option.

Yes, and the people of these states are within their rights to vote for their states to secede. You may insist, and validly so that to secede would be "illegal", but does that justify use of force to prevent them from secession?

[Minoriteeburg]

Sure is.

If states didn't secede during the 8 years of Bush (one of the most (if not the most) unpopular presidents in US History, they won't under Obama.

I am really starting to get tired of people hating on Obama so much. I am not his biggest fan, but this country has seen far worse in leadership than him.

Nixon and Polk.

And did anyone try to secede then?

[The Emerald Dawn]

SECEDE

SUCCEED

These are two words, that have nothing in common. Look them up.

Grammar nazi attempt to point out the Homonym mistake I made. Regardless, you get the point.

If by "the point" you mean that you're overly twisting people's words to create a socially inflamed response? Sure.

[Samuraikoku]

Grammar nazi attempt to point out the Homonym mistake I made. Regardless, you get the point.

EDIT: Correction that is not a homonym as the words are not pronounced in the same exact manner.

You didn't succeed in making your case for the states to secede.

[Minoriteeburg]

You know what? I say let them, and then invade them because we believe they have WMDs. That would be entertaining.....

[Ostroeuropa]

Grammar nazi attempt to point out the Homonym mistake I made. Regardless, you get the point.

EDIT: Correction that is not a homonym as the words are not pronounced in the same exact manner.

You didn't succeed in making your case for the states to secede.

Self-determination.
If they elect a representative whose entire platform is independence, a referendum should be issued.
If they achieve a majority in a referendum, it should be allowed.

This is the only mechanism by which independence can be viewed as legitimate in my opinion, UNLESS the area in question HAS no representative in government, then it may unilaterally declare independence.

[Samuraikoku]

Yes, and the people of these states are within their rights to vote for their states to secede. You may insist, and validly so that to secede would be "illegal", but does that justify use of force to prevent them from secession?

Yes. Treason.

[The Emerald Dawn]

You didn't succeed in making your case for the states to secede.

Self-determination.
If they elect a representative whose entire platform is independence, a referendum should be issued.
If they achieve a majority in a referendum, it should be allowed.

US Law.
If they can amend the constitution by convincing 2/3rds of all states and continue through that to setting up an agreed upon framework for secession, we'll talk.

[The Black Forrest]

Did some thinking about it. If this did happen I would probably move to a state such as California or new york.

What happens if California or New York secedes? There has been a little bit of talk about it.

Not really.....

[Samuraikoku]

You didn't succeed in making your case for the states to secede.

Self-determination.
If they elect a representative whose entire platform is independence, a referendum should be issued.
If they achieve a majority in a referendum, it should be allowed.

This is the only mechanism by which independence can be viewed as legitimate in my opinion, UNLESS the area in question HAS no representative in government, then it may unilaterally declare independence.

That sentence was a wordplay.

[Ostroeuropa]

Self-determination.
If they elect a representative whose entire platform is independence, a referendum should be issued.
If they achieve a majority in a referendum, it should be allowed.

US Law.
If they can amend the constitution by convincing 2/3rds of all states and continue through that to setting up an agreed upon framework for secession, we'll talk.

Doubtless there was a law against what the colonists did, or indeed, the irish.

[Farnhamia]

States do not have rights, states have powers. The people have rights. And I didn't say it never came up. The Civil War did resolve the idea of using force to leave. But really, no, states cannot just up and leave the Union. If these people signing these petitions are so aggrieved, they should have their elected representatives petition Congress to create some way for them to go. That's the only option.

Yes, and the people of these states are within their rights to vote for their states to secede. You may insist, and validly so that to secede would be "illegal", but does that justify use of force to prevent them from secession?

Yes, people doing something illegal - and expropriating territory belonging to the United States, plus all the property contained therein would be massively illegal - should be stopped, by force if necessary. The FBI would arrest the leaders, who would be tried under US law. It's as simple as that. If they resist forcefully, waging war against the United States, they are guilty of treason.

[Delanshar]

We don't have a monarchy.

It does not matter. If people want to succeed then they want to succeed. If enough of them in an area want to succeed, are you going to attempt to stop them by force?

Thats a dangerous mindset. It means the territorial intregrity of the USA is hold hostage to swaying public opinion. The USA is meant to be a perpetual union. Once your in, your here to stay.