Secession Movement in the United States

[Ceannairceach]

In legal terms it absolutely does.
To respect a legal principle means to agree it is in effect. If the texans were to vote for to secede with a majority, the US would be legally obligated to allow them, OR to bring it to an international court and argue texas isn't a nation.
(A fight they would lose.)

All this means is that people who don't want to be ruled by the United States should be allowed to leave. Which they are. It does NOT mean that anybody anywhere in the country can secede and form their own nation. Whether it be the state of Texas or my mom's country house, you can't just break off from Federal authority whenever you damn well please.

Well I can. Principality of Fort Montgomery, here I come!

[Delanshar]

All this means is that people who don't want to be ruled by the United States should be allowed to leave. Which they are. It does NOT mean that anybody anywhere in the country can secede and form their own nation. Whether it be the state of Texas or my mom's country house, you can't just break off from Federal authority whenever you damn well please.

Well I can. Principality of Fort Montgomery, here I come!

Ft Montgomery, NY? lol I've actually been there multiple times.

[Forsakia]

And you'd apply this elsewhere?

Should England vote on whether Scotland becomes independent? (Or any given example you like).

Not to mention the states did so when the majority of their population wasn't allowed to vote.

I've got no idea. I don't have an universal solution to these issues, not knowing their respective contexts.

What's your bar for self-determination then?

If the majority of people in Texas want to be independent (hypothetically) what's your justification for not letting them be independent?

If you just cite "the law" well then that's got to apply to a lot of other situations where there's rarely a legal provision for allowing secession.

You need some form of consistency, or do you not support the principle of self-determination at all?

[Ceannairceach]

Well I can. Principality of Fort Montgomery, here I come!

Ft Montgomery, NY? lol I've actually been there multiple times.

Indeed! And all of Lake Champlain shall be my dumping ground! Mwahahaha!

[Samuraikoku]

What's your bar for self-determination then?

If the majority of people in Texas want to be independent (hypothetically) what's your justification for not letting them be independent?

If you just cite "the law" well then that's got to apply to a lot of other situations where there's rarely a legal provision for allowing secession.

You need some form of consistency, or do you not support the principle of self-determination at all?

Told you. Depending on the context, my opinion. And I told you, if the secessionist states want self-determination, they have to go through Congress. End of story.

[Delanshar]

Ft Montgomery, NY? lol I've actually been there multiple times.

Indeed! And all of Lake Champlain shall be my dumping ground! Mwahahaha!

My Dukedom of West Point may take issue with your expansionism.

[National Bohemia]

In legal terms it absolutely does.
To respect a legal principle means to agree it is in effect. If the texans were to vote for to secede with a majority, the US would be legally obligated to allow them.

It does not in any way say that they must surrender their territory to the secessionists; The land on which they reside is Federal, and thus owned by the government of the United States, not by the states in question. They are exempt for that reason. The legal idea here is that the wording says they must respect the self-determination of peoples, but that does not equate to the self-determination of the states themselves. The people are free to determine themselves free from the government of the United States, so long as they then take their business elsewhere.

This is utterly, utterly false. Federal law may apply in Maryland, Texas, Washington, or California, but this does not mean that the territory now belongs to the federal government. The federal government is not empowered to build wherever it pleases, exercise general police powers, determine land use, or perform any of the functions reserved to the states. Note that the federal government must pay great sums of money to purchase land from states, at which point it becomes PROPERTY of the federal government, but remains TERRITORY of the state in which it lies, subject to state law as well as federal, unless exempted by an act of the STATE legislature.

Here's one question for all the blood-soaked unionists -- when a man and woman marry, the typical vows include a "'til death do us part" clause. Does this mean that if one party subsequently seeks a contested divorce, they must be beaten or killed to prevent the breakup of an indissoluble union? Remember, marriage counseling would be accommodating a traitorous spouse, so that's not an option. The ultimatum is submission or death.

[ALMF]

Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada and Colorado are the wrong colour.

They can come along, I guess.

If it comes to that, Indiana, Gorga, Arizona, and Missury wold be coficted

[Forsakia]

What's your bar for self-determination then?

If the majority of people in Texas want to be independent (hypothetically) what's your justification for not letting them be independent?

If you just cite "the law" well then that's got to apply to a lot of other situations where there's rarely a legal provision for allowing secession.

You need some form of consistency, or do you not support the principle of self-determination at all?

Told you. Depending on the context, my opinion. And I told you, if the secessionist states want self-determination, they have to go through Congress. End of story.

What would be important about the context? There's no underlying principles at all?

And if Congress just says "No"? I mean to really go hypothetical, say every resident of Texas wanted independence, the rest of the US should be able to stop them?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Told you. Depending on the context, my opinion. And I told you, if the secessionist states want self-determination, they have to go through Congress. End of story.

What would be important about the context? There's no underlying principles at all?

And if Congress just says "No"? I mean to really go hypothetical, say every resident of Texas wanted independence, the rest of the US should be able to stop them?

Yep.

[Armenia Reborn]

It does not in any way say that they must surrender their territory to the secessionists; The land on which they reside is Federal, and thus owned by the government of the United States, not by the states in question. They are exempt for that reason. The legal idea here is that the wording says they must respect the self-determination of peoples, but that does not equate to the self-determination of the states themselves. The people are free to determine themselves free from the government of the United States, so long as they then take their business elsewhere.

This is utterly, utterly false. Federal law may apply in Maryland, Texas, Washington, or California, but this does not mean that the territory now belongs to the federal government. The federal government is not empowered to build wherever it pleases, exercise general police powers, determine land use, or perform any of the functions reserved to the states. Note that the federal government must pay great sums of money to purchase land from states, at which point it becomes PROPERTY of the federal government, but remains TERRITORY of the state in which it lies, subject to state law as well as federal, unless exempted by an act of the STATE legislature.

Here's one question for all the blood-soaked unionists -- when a man and woman marry, the typical vows include a "'til death do us part" clause. Does this mean that if one party subsequently seeks a contested divorce, they must be beaten or killed to prevent the breakup of an indissoluble union?

An extremely important point. The question is: Where did the concept of the Federal government owing all land in the U.S. come from?

[Delanshar]

Here's one question for all the blood-soaked unionists -- when a man and woman marry, the typical vows include a "'til death do us part" clause. Does this mean that if one party subsequently seeks a contested divorce, they must be beaten or killed to prevent the breakup of an indissoluble union?

First you bring up honor killings now marriage?
How many times do I have to make this clear.
National Politics =/= Family issues.

The vows of marriage are non-binding. This is not the case with the states' relationship to the federal government.

[Greed and Death]

Has the United States ratified any treaty regarding self determination?

UN charter.

where in the Un charter does it say resolutions by the general assembly are binding law ?

[Samuraikoku]

What would be important about the context? There's no underlying principles at all?

Is Texas really a "nation"?

And if Congress just says "No"? I mean to really go hypothetical, say every resident of Texas wanted independence, the rest of the US should be able to stop them?

They have, actually.

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

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.

[Armenia Reborn]

This is not the case with the states' relationship to the federal government.

So how exactly it is the case for states relationship to the federal government? Where does it imply that states are bound to the federal government for eternity?

[National Bohemia]

Here's one question for all the blood-soaked unionists -- when a man and woman marry, the typical vows include a "'til death do us part" clause. Does this mean that if one party subsequently seeks a contested divorce, they must be beaten or killed to prevent the breakup of an indissoluble union?

First you bring up honor killings now marriage?
How many times do I have to make this clear.
National Politics =/= Family issues.

The vows of marriage are non-binding. This is not the case with the states' relationship to the federal government.

Why are marriage vows morally non-binding, but papers signed by long-dead slavers morally enforceable by slaughter? Clearly you don't see the United States as a family of affiliated states -- it's a street gang, and woe on the poor son of a bitch who wants to quit.

[The Emerald Dawn]

First you bring up honor killings now marriage?
How many times do I have to make this clear.
National Politics =/= Family issues.

The vows of marriage are non-binding. This is not the case with the states' relationship to the federal government.

Why are marriage vows morally non-binding, but papers signed by long-dead slavers morally enforceable by slaughter?

Because human?

[Samuraikoku]

This is not the case with the states' relationship to the federal government.

So how exactly it is the case for states relationship to the federal government? Where does it imply that states are bound to the federal government for eternity?

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.

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

[Forsakia]

What would be important about the context? There's no underlying principles at all?

Is Texas really a "nation"?

You could make a good case for it, community of people with common culture, history etc.

And if Congress just says "No"? I mean to really go hypothetical, say every resident of Texas wanted independence, the rest of the US should be able to stop them?

They have, actually.

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

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.

So in short you don't support self-determinism?

Did Texas ever vote on whether to become part of the USA? If they did then the electorate would probably have been a minority of the population.

Why should a minority of dead people overrule a majority of living people?

[Delanshar]

First you bring up honor killings now marriage?
How many times do I have to make this clear.
National Politics =/= Family issues.

The vows of marriage are non-binding. This is not the case with the states' relationship to the federal government.

Why are marriage vows morally non-binding, but papers signed by long-dead slavers morally enforceable by slaughter? Clearly you don't see the United States as a family of affiliated states -- it's a street gang, and woe on the poor son of a bitch who wants to quit.

Papers signed by long dead slavers. LoL. Wasn't it last night that you were defending the constitution as some mythical document that we must never go against?

Also "Slavers" are the very people that tried to secede the first time, just saying.

[Delanshar]

This is not the case with the states' relationship to the federal government.

So how exactly it is the case for states relationship to the federal government? Where does it imply that states are bound to the federal government for eternity?

How about you look up, The post directly above your own has the answer you seek.

[Kintuckistan]

I'd support emigration from America over secession.

[Armenia Reborn]

"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?"

I don't see how this translates to indissoluble unity.

[Samuraikoku]

So in short you don't support self-determinism?

Did Texas ever vote on whether to become part of the USA? If they did then the electorate would probably have been a minority of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation#Annexation_by_joint_resolution

Why should a minority of dead people overrule a majority of living people?

They wouldn't be overruling anything. The majority of living people have a different system to go through than back then.

[Samuraikoku]

"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?"

I don't see how this translates to indissoluble unity.

Keep reading. That's a huge block of text, and the substantial part is bolded for your own convenience.