This is not directed at any particular party, but it's still marked as political.

As you understand it, believe it, whatever, just like the title says, Do the individual states have the right to secede from the United States? Why or why not? If you had a resolution on the ballot and it was passed, giving your governor the right to demand your state's independence if conditions x, y, and z are met, and those things happen, do you believe the state has the right to secede?

I'd like to hear a number of viewpoints on both sides.

John Stricker

my question would be, if this was to happen, the armed forces in that said state, would they all move out of the state, or would they then become the states? and if said state would have like a federal reserve or some other of national importance type thing within the state, like say nuclear warhead storage, or nasa? i dont see where a state could fully step away from the nation.

Lincoln didn't think so.

No, but his Supreme Court did, and he nearly disbanded them, but that wasn't the question.

Let me re-state. I would like to know YOUR opinions, the members of this forum, not what Lincoln or anyone else thought.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Wolfhound: Lincoln didn't think so.

I don't think any state has the right (except Texas) spelled out. Neither did we as a providence have the right to declare independence from Britian. The Soviet Union also had individual states break away.
States do have rights to protect themselves from the federal government (10th Amendment) but are hamstrung my federal money allocations. Our federal government has gotten too large. Not just in size but also in domination over state rights.

I believe it would depend on the state. Some states have a lot of federal property and strategic value the US would definitely fight to keep control of (air force bases, ports, etc.). Several states would need to secede together if they planned on making it a lasting arrangement.

If a state did secede, I hate to think of who would fire the first shot and what it would lead to again.

I would think ANY state or even a city has "the right" to secede. As far as I know, any group of people anywhere anytime can organize and choose their leadership. because you need no constitutional right - because - once seceded - the constitution doesnt matter, that new nation must create its own.
But, I would suggest that ingress & egress be worked out prior
much is taken for granted
just some examples from this thread:
Kansas is landlocked - how are imports/exports gonna be handled? the USA must be traversed
Texas was mentioned - while I am sure at this point, they feel strong - but how long can they hold of mexico? tho - I would suggest a proactive answer, and take over Mexico as item #1 especially being how much of the population already is, well, Mexican
perhaps together, taking Oklahoma as well

or, am I thinking seceding is more than what it implies?

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 10-05-2009).]

YES

the structure of the republic is individual states, joined via agreement and a common good

when that good ceases to exist, the individual parties to the agreement DO have the right to leave, and act in thier own best interests.

The Civil War answered this question. And the answer is "NO".

You also have to look at it from a practical perspective. Before the Civil War, almost half the country seceded from the Union. They were defeated, and re-absorbed into the Union. If a single state, or a small number of states, were to do the same, they wouldn't stand a chance. The federal gov't would re-absorb them quickly.

Ironically, the Civil War (which was fought over states' rights) only served to help shift power from the states to the federal gov't. If the states were to try something similar again, it would only result in more power being shifted up to the federal level. I don't know about you, but the last thing I want is more power in the federal gov't.

I believe each state has the right to secede. Why, because it is in our constitution. States come together to form the country, not vice versa. If the country is not looking out for the state's best interests then it is within that state's rights to secede from the union and operate as a separate entity. Black and white, if you ask me.

My opinion would be that each State should have the right to pull away. I feel that the Fed Gov't should fear the States; they should be worried about the states not supporting them.

But I understand that it isn't that way, so I agree with blacktree. However, since the Fed doesn't fear the states, they will continue to collect power. (either way we're screwed)

This is probably where this discussion is headed:



First, Floridas (and some other eastern states) demographics have shifted since this map was drawn.
Sorry, NO Disney World for Redneckistan.
You'd have to bring your passport and exchange your 'currency' for US dollars.
The whole thing probably isn't a good idea, given todays world econonomics.
But if ya gotta go, good luck to ya!

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 10-05-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: The Civil War answered this question. And the answer is "NO". You also have to look at it from a practical perspective. Before the Civil War, almost half the country seceded from the Union. They were defeated, and re-absorbed into the Union. If a single state, or a small number of states, were to do the same, they wouldn't stand a chance. The federal gov't would re-absorb them quickly.

I have to disagree. The states did secede from the union, and created their own country. The United States declared war upon the Confederate States. We all know that the United States won and took over control of the Confederate States once the Confederates signed the treaty. My point is, just because the Confederate States lost the war and were taken over by the United States, does not mean the states do not have a right to secede from the Union.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Sorry, NO Disney World for Redneckistan.

Disney World is a perception. We don't live in fantasy land and do not need it. Besides, we have Six Flags, a realistic tribute to six times that we have decided who we are, without permission.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: It probably isn't a good idea, given todays world econonomics.

You might have a point. Other people's money is drying up. Good thing we don't need it.

Isn't Disneyland in Pacifica?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Texas was mentioned - while I am sure at this point, they feel strong - but how long can they hold of mexico? tho - I would suggest a proactive answer, and take over Mexico as item #1 especially being how much of the population already is, well, Mexican perhaps together, taking Oklahoma as well

I guess you meant how long could we hold off Mexico ? It would be easier to do today than it was in 1836 when 186 Texians held off 5000 Mexicans at the Alamo for 13 days. Easier than we defeated them in an eighteen minute battle at San Jacinto and won independence. Then, they were a world power and we were just like we are now. Wanting to govern our own interests. Back when we declared independence from Mexico, we even fielded a navy and invaded Mexico.
We want no part of taking over Mexico. We welcome their citizens who feel like we do. There is much made of a Texas/Oklahoma rivalry, but, we are brothers. Now, Kansas is not landlocked. Many countries are landlocked. So what ?

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: If a state did secede, I hate to think of who would fire the first shot and what it would lead to again.

Myself, I am a free man. I will defend that freedom.

quote Originally posted by Johbby: My point is, just because the Confederate States lost the war and were taken over by the United States, does not mean the states do not have a right to secede from the Union.

In that case, the states have a right they can't exercise.

While the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid secession, it has become impractical. The political strife that lead to the Civil War, and the war itself, were so violent and hateful that secession has basically become a non-option. The violent history associated with secession has caused it to become stigmatized.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 10-05-2009).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: This is probably where this discussion is headed: First, Floridas (and some other eastern states) demographics have shifted since this map was drawn. Sorry, NO Disney World for Redneckistan. You'd have to bring your passport and exchange your 'currency' for US dollars. The whole thing probably isn't a good idea, given todays world econonomics. But if ya gotta go, good luck to ya!

It may only head in that direction because of your desire for it to head there.
Can't you just discuss the topic?
Your being MEAN sir.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: . The whole thing probably isn't a good idea, given todays world econonomics. But if ya gotta go, good luck to ya!

If thats mean, then what is threatening to hang me?
Uber mean?

You're just mad because I said you can't have Disney World, the largest and most visited recreational resort in the world.


Me? I really don't care.
The fish bite no matter what color the flag is.
Tourists come and spend money.
Florida has already been English, Spanish, French, Confederate, and USA.
Not to mention Native American.
Big whoop.
The nearby Bahamas seem to do just fine as an independent country.
Cuba gets by.
The so called 'flyover states', however, would seem to be very dependent on the Union.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 10-05-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: In that case, the states have a right they can't exercise.

They have before. As did the subjects of England when we declared independence. As did the Texians when they declared independence. As did many Soviet states when they broke away. History is ripe of peoples, world over, fighting to live free.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 10-05-2009).]

The right to secede 'spelled out in stone' via the US Constitution?
No.

In principle--yes, as one of those unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence..

Should a state's own people vote and their state govt enact into law the right to secede, then yes--certainly the right is there for that state.

What would happen after that, is moot. The thread is about whether a state has this right-or can declare/obtain this right---not about what the ramifications of such action might be.

For those of you who believe secession would by nature be a violent act, I disagree. It could escalate into that, but not before it was debated before:
1. SCOTUS
2. UN
3. World Court The Hague.

The federal govt would--IMO--be on very shaky ground in the last 2 international bodies, as the US Govt has a long history of supporting self determination regarding states elsewhere in the world, both in words and actions. S. Korea-S. Vietnam-W. Germany--Chechnya--Bosnia--Poland--Taiwan-------it's a very long list where our US Govt has pronounced support for breakaway states in different parts of the world--particularly in the old Eastern European Bloc of the USSR.

Neptune's cartoonish map, which has been posted several times by different people, is of course, inaccurate by today's ideologies.
The states least likely to secede today, are the poorest states, which at the time of secession in 1860ish, were among the richest in the nation. The poor states today rely on the richer states as a funding block, so they would be very hesitant to cut off the hand that feeds them. The other inaccuracy, is the dependance on red/blue voters in each state. Even tho we recently saw an improved turnout in national elections, it was still dismal, and a hot issue such as secession would almost assuredly bring every adult in each state to attention, and that total in each state could very well fly in the face of how that state had voted in the past.

As far as whether a binding ratification of any amendment had been approved by each state in the past or not--that also is moot. Divorcing one's self from the federal govt would in itself declare that the particular state no longer recognized that ratification, or the power the fed held over that state to begin with.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE:

It looks like the south has all the oil.

quote Originally posted by IEatRice: It looks like the south has all the oil.

In 1860 the South had all the cotton.
A VERY important commodity at the time.
How'd that work out?

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 10-05-2009).]

I didn't ask the question to get more bigoted bullshit. Interesting, to me anayway, how in most cases my question has been answered by conservatives thoughtfully, both pro and con, while the two most staunch liberals either didn't address the question or were bound to interject more bias and smart aleck remarks.

The question is a serious one, not that I'm planning secession anytime in my life, but it comes down to what is, and is not, a fundamental right of people for self-determination.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: This is probably where this discussion is headed: First, Floridas (and some other eastern states) demographics have shifted since this map was drawn. Sorry, NO Disney World for Redneckistan. You'd have to bring your passport and exchange your 'currency' for US dollars. The whole thing probably isn't a good idea, given todays world econonomics. But if ya gotta go, good luck to ya!

OK John.
The answer is NO.
Doesn't the Pledge of Allegiance say :"One Nation.....indivisible......forever?"
Unless you farmers pick up guns and somehow manage to defeat the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and National Guard.
And the "friendly forces" of the remaining US Allies.

Better?

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 10-05-2009).]

As I stated in my 1st post, past history is no indication of what might happen today. You're assuming a violent reaction to secession today, and that wouldn't be the case--at least at first. And no--the south does not have all the oil. The largest reserves in the nation are in a couple of western states--with the shale oil reserves.

In the 1860's most manufactoring was in the North--which is not the case today--it's much more evenly spread out now.

Why does this not surprise me ?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: The question is a serious one, not that I'm planning secession anytime in my life, but it comes down to what is, and is not, a fundamental right of people for self-determination.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: OK John. The answer is NO.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: ..... The question is a serious one, not that I'm planning secession anytime in my life, but it comes down to what is, and is not, a fundamental right of people for self-determination. John Stricker

that one of the fun things about seceding is you create your own set of rights. fresh paper. the constitution will mean nothing. the bill of rights will mean nothing. yes, you can by all means plagurize. after you start digging into how deep it really goes, you start to see the things most take for granted on a daily basis. and there is alot.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Why does this not surprise me ?

It should.
I personally could live without Texas just fine.
Oklahoma too, if it came to that.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 10-05-2009).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: This is not directed at any particular party, but it's still marked as political. As you understand it, believe it, whatever, just like the title says, Do the individual states have the right to secede from the United States? Why or why not? If you had a resolution on the ballot and it was passed, giving your governor the right to demand your state's independence if conditions x, y, and z are met, and those things happen, do you believe the state has the right to secede? I'd like to hear a number of viewpoints on both sides. John Stricker

Wasn't this tried once before, and the parties were forcibly returned to the union?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: As I stated in my 1st post, past history is no indication of what might happen today. You're assuming a violent reaction to secession today, and that wouldn't be the case--at least at first. And no--the south does not have all the oil. The largest reserves in the nation are in a couple of western states--with the shale oil reserves. In the 1860's most manufactoring was in the North--which is not the case today--it's much more evenly spread out now.

I'm pretty sure trade sanctions and a blockade would put a sudden halt to any attempted rebellion.

quote Originally posted by Nurb432: Wasn't this tried once before, and the parties were forcibly returned to the union?

Anytime a contract or treaty is no longer in the best interest of one of the parties they will eventually bail on it, or renegotiate. Obviously the new agreement in question with the southern states was signed under duress, that is the very nature of surrender. So if they had the right before, they still have it now.

I disagree that it's not spelled out in the Constitution, as well as other places, but that's why I asked the question, to get other opinions.

The Declaration of Independence, one of our most cherished documents, is the statement of principles that is a declaration of secession from the British Empire. The US Constitution, while not spelling out the right of secession specifically, also never prohibit it and therefore are covered by the Tenth Amendment. "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."

That's pretty specific to me.

I think it's pretty clear where I stand on whether the states have the RIGHT to secede, but that doesn't mean I think they have the ability or even want to do it.

Finally, for those that quote Lincoln, his wartime policies, particularly the suspension of the right of Habeas Corpus, were overturned by the Supreme Court at the time, but Lincoln ignored it. By rights, he should have been removed by impeachment.

Lastly, who here can name me one Confederate leader or General that was tried for treason against the United States? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

I'll save you the Google time. None. Nada. Zip. No Confederate leader wa ever even charged with treason because the US Government KNEW that it would end up in the Supreme Court and they had no grounds to try anyone for treason. The first shot of the Civil War was fired on a Union Ship, "The Star of the West" from a concealed battery on Morris Island. The ship was bringing supplies and reinforcements to Major Anderson at Fort Sumter. The ship was a military vessel bringing military supplies and reinforcements to an invading Army of what was then a newly soverign nation. The troops on Morris Island were well within their rights to defend their territory. Based on the United States' invasion of the South, without a declaration of war at that time, it was really and truly an illegal war of aggression by the United States, and nobody wanted it to go to the Supreme Court and have them say that.

I'd still like as many opinions as possible from the folks here because of their diverse backgrounds, and hope it can stay on topic. It's fine, and interesting, to discuss whether it's right, or practical, or should be done, but please don't forget to address the original question as well, which is:

Does a State have the right to Secede from the Union?
John Stricker

quote Originally posted by maryjane: The right to secede 'spelled out in stone' via the US Constitution? No. In principle--yes, as one of those unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.. Should a state's own people vote and their state govt enact into law the right to secede, then yes--certainly the right is there for that state. What would happen after that, is moot. The thread is about whether a state has this right-or can declare/obtain this right---not about what the ramifications of such action might be. For those of you who believe secession would by nature be a violent act, I disagree. It could escalate into that, but not before it was debated before: 1. SCOTUS 2. UN 3. World Court The Hague. The federal govt would--IMO--be on very shaky ground in the last 2 international bodies, as the US Govt has a long history of supporting self determination regarding states elsewhere in the world, both in words and actions. S. Korea-S. Vietnam-W. Germany--Chechnya--Bosnia--Poland--Taiwan-------it's a very long list where our US Govt has pronounced support for breakaway states in different parts of the world--particularly in the old Eastern European Bloc of the USSR. Neptune's cartoonish map, which has been posted several times by different people, is of course, inaccurate by today's ideologies. The states least likely to secede today, are the poorest states, which at the time of secession in 1860ish, were among the richest in the nation. The poor states today rely on the richer states as a funding block, so they would be very hesitant to cut off the hand that feeds them. The other inaccuracy, is the dependance on red/blue voters in each state. Even tho we recently saw an improved turnout in national elections, it was still dismal, and a hot issue such as secession would almost assuredly bring every adult in each state to attention, and that total in each state could very well fly in the face of how that state had voted in the past. As far as whether a binding ratification of any amendment had been approved by each state in the past or not--that also is moot. Divorcing one's self from the federal govt would in itself declare that the particular state no longer recognized that ratification, or the power the fed held over that state to begin with.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Unless you farmers pick up guns and somehow manage to defeat the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and National Guard. And the "friendly forces" of the remaining US Allies. Better?

You are forgetting or omitting that there could be up to half this US military armed forces that would be from the seceding states.

Yes, better. You addressed the practicality of secession, at least, but still have failed to address the question. Do the states have the RIGHT to secede, and why or why not?

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: OK John. The answer is NO. Doesn't the Pledge of Allegiance say :"One Nation.....indivisible......forever?" Unless you farmers pick up guns and somehow manage to defeat the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and National Guard. And the "friendly forces" of the remaining US Allies. Better?

well, maybe you need to be more clear on the what you expect of the outcome. because - I am assuming detachment from the USA - at which point ANY USA documents dont matter, do they? you are now in charge of creating your own sets of rights, your own constitution, etc.

or are you talking about some median level, where you are still part of the USA, but more like Peurto Rico? tho, I'd expect this wouldnt be very friendly, and it would be more like Cuba in the end.

Do the states have the right to secede from the Union if that Union no longer has the states' best interests in mind? YES.

The question then becomes can the states maintain that independence from the Union? Probably not as they are currently cut out. Most likely new states will be made based on the demographics of the region.

[This message has been edited by hklvette (edited 10-05-2009).]

They have the right to secede. Just like speed limits are not federal mandates... Just expect to lose a LOT of revenue. It would not be in their be$t intere$t to $ecede.

I wouldn't give any state more than a month before it crumbled. Things are already pretty tight.

Thank you all for your comments so far. I asked for them as food for thought in my mind, so I'm not going to argue with people that don't agree with me. My longer post explaining MY position was there to give perspective on what I thought, but feel free to take it to task, that's why I asked and that's why I posted it.

John Stricker


PS: maryjane and Red, you both have PM's

OK, John. I'll grant you, for the sake of this argument, that there is no specific law prohibiting secession.
In a court of law, in a situation like this, attorneys will cite precedence, previous cases, common practice, even international laws and laws from other countries.
Secession of any US state or states would be on very shaky, but not entirely untenable ground.
Back to the practical side of the argument, the cost of litigation would bankrupt any state well before the Federal government ran out of ink to print more money.
And keep in mind as well, that the currency of the state attempting to secede would be pretty much worthless, trade would cease, and corporate bank accounts would be frozen, etc, etc, etc.

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 10-05-2009).]