| Author |
Topic:
The States' Right to Secede
|
Jango10
Registered:
Sep '02
|
Date Posted:
5/13 7:50pm
Subject:
The States' Right to Secede
|
|
Coming off the United State's recognizing Kosovo's idependence from Serbia, the question came to me: How is this different from the South seceding from the Union before the Civil War? I asked myself again, do states have the right to secede? I then thought this would make for a good debate so here it is.
-----signature-----
"I love the smell of Napalm in the morning."
McCain/Palin '08
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
5/13 8:04pm
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
I'm not sure Kosovo can be looked at as an example of strict secession though. Remember, as a result of its civil war, Kosovo has been governed by an outside agency which operates under the authority of the UN since 1999 or 2000. Serbia has always claimed that it would be a violation of its sovereignty to grant Kosovo independence, but that decision hasn't been Serbia's to make for 8 years or so.
So to answer this question, I'd say that it would be extremely difficult for any state to remove itself from a functioning union.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_SweetPea
Registered:
Nov '02
|
Date Posted:
5/14 6:53am
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
This could actually be a good topic soon. Eventually the Supreme Court will have to rule on the 2nd Amendment, and as I understand it, Montana's State Legislators have already drafted a Notice that they will Secede due to Breach of contract, by the Federal Government.
"If at first you don't Secede, Try and try again!"
-----signature-----
I don't like the donkeys and I don't like the Elephants http://www.lp.org "Some people never have anything except ideas Go Do it! Lucky Numbers 3, 11, 21, 31, 41, 43"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth-Ghost
Registered:
Oct '03
|
Date Posted:
5/14 8:06am
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
- Date Edited:
5/14 8:16am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth-Ghost
|
I've wondered about this before too, and don't have any answers. Vermont has been very vocal about threatening to secede lately, but I don't think any politicians take it seriously.
We said we had the right to secede from the British, saying the King and Parliament had broken its social contract with the American colonies. The Confederates then believed Lincoln would break their states' social contract with the Union over the issue of slavery, but we refused to let the south go and fought our bloodiest war over it. We've also conquered the lands of the Native Americans and Hawaiians. The United States has a very mixed record on all this; not only with our country but also through the world with Kosovo, Taiwan, actions taken in Korea and Vietnam, but now we're trying to keep the Kurds in Iraq from seceding or a similar situation with Sunnis and Shiites.
I don't think we have a clear policy on this, and even the politicians don't have an answer. The right to secede is not prohibited, or mentioned at all in the Constitution. The only common thread seems to be American politicians will do what they think is best for Americans in most of the cases, sometimes its in our interests to secede or support regions of other countries seceding, sometimes its in our interests to preserve the union of other countries and most importantly the union of our own country.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I guess the issue is whether secession should be viewed as self-determination/ liberty/ justice/ the general welfare/ defense of its citizens, and whether those things are more important than preserving the Union or not. This again seems to go into social contract theory. If the federal government is viewed as infringing on liberties, or causing injustices, or creating chaos, or not defending properly some of its citizens, or not trying to promote the general welfare for its people; is any of that enough for the people to declare their right to secede? How extreme does the violation in the social contract have to be, where is the line?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
-polymath-
Title: SFF:F/TV Trivia Host
Registered:
Jun '07
|
Date Posted:
5/14 9:23am
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
|
The States have no right of secession. The American Civil War established this doctrine, even if it's unwritten.
-----signature-----
SFF Films & TV Trivia Contest: Subject is "Serenity/Firefly"
**Question Seven Posted**
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
5/14 9:43am
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
I here by proclaim this the "United-or-Else States of America!" 
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_Vivec
Registered:
Apr '06
|
Date Posted:
5/14 10:19am
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
-polymath- posted:
The States have no right of secession. The American Civil War established this doctrine, even if it's unwritten.
No states have a right to secede. They just have to be militarily stronger.
-----signature-----
EUS Vice Chancellor
Do you enjoy pajamas?
Obama/Biden '08
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
5/14 10:46am
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
- Date Edited:
5/14 10:47am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
Montana?
Ranked 47th in the nation in per capita income, a population of less than a million, a mostly agrarian economy and completely land-locked. I say they should go for it. We can pry their guns from their cold dead hands after they all starve.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
5/14 11:26am
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
|
Not to mention their precious glaciers aren't going to be worth much soon anyways.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_Vivec
Registered:
Apr '06
|
Date Posted:
5/14 12:04pm
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
- Date Edited:
5/14 12:05pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Lord_Vivec
|
-polymath- posted:
The States have no right of secession. The American Civil War established this doctrine, even if it's unwritten.
No, states have a right to secede. They just have to be militarily stronger.
Edited version of previous post.
-----signature-----
EUS Vice Chancellor
Do you enjoy pajamas?
Obama/Biden '08
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
5/14 12:11pm
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
Darth-Ghost posted:
We said we had the right to secede from the British, saying the King and Parliament had broken its social contract with the American colonies. The Confederates then believed Lincoln would break their states' social contract with the Union over the issue of slavery, but we refused to let the south go and fought our bloodiest war over it.
Note the two parts that I bolded there. Once one of the parties breaks a contract (social or otherwise), the other party is free to choose whether to hold them to it, or terminate it.
In the case of the American Revolution, the social contract was initially broken by Great Britain. The colonies simply decided to terminate the contract that was already broken.
In the case of the Civil War, on the other hand, the social contract wasn't broken by the Union. Lincoln hadn't broken the contract. The Confederacy was simply afraid that he would. The contract was initially broken by the Confederacy, not by the Union. The Union simply exercised its right to enforce the contract.
Secession is legal in the US, but not unilateral secession. It requires the consent of not just the seceding state, but the rest of the nation as well.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth-Seldon
Registered:
May '03
|
Date Posted:
5/14 3:15pm
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
A right by a sovereign entity to secede is dependent on their governing structure and constitution. For the United States, this was the fundamental question which plagued every administration from Jackson to Lincoln. It was finally settled on the battlefields of the Civil War.
Many of the early battles in Congress involved the role of the states in a federal union. South Carolina caused a hostile conflict during the Jackson presidency, when they attempted to nullify a tariff bill. Jackson responded with the Force Act. Daniel Webster eloquently defended the strength of the federal union in his Second Reply to Hayne. In it, Webster asserted that the nation was comprised of the people rather than the states. As the preamble expresses it was founded by "We the People." Therefore, a federal union could not be dissolved by individual states. While the states ratifyed the document, it was the people who drafted and suported it.
This basic doctrine was supported from Webster to Clay, Jackson to Lincoln. While the Great Triumverate of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun were able to postpone the war until the 1860s, the next generation was not as capable. War was fought, but the principles were reinforced.
The doctrines of nullification and secession were defeated within the constitutional structure of the United States government. That does not necessarily apply to other nations.
-Seldon
-----signature-----
Isaac Asimov was an innovative genius All posters are equal but some posters are more equal than others. Barack Obama & Joe Biden 2008 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Quixotic-Sith
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
5/14 3:30pm
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
|
I don't think the right exists; if it did, it would be exceptionally foolish, as I don't think there are any states that can be truly global and self-sufficient.
-----signature-----
Cressbeckler 2008!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
5/14 3:37pm
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
Quixotic-Sith posted:
I don't think the right exists; if it did, it would be exceptionally foolish, as I don't think there are any states that can be truly global and self-sufficient.
I think Texas and definitely California could.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Quixotic-Sith
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
5/14 3:57pm
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
Jediflyer posted:
Quixotic-Sith posted:
I don't think the right exists; if it did, it would be exceptionally foolish, as I don't think there are any states that can be truly global and self-sufficient.
I think Texas and definitely California could.
I was thinking about those two, but I'm not convinced.
-----signature-----
Cressbeckler 2008!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
5/14 4:11pm
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
California easily. Their main concern is access to potable water and energy. Like the rest of the country, a sovereign California would not be energy independent.
I see the right to secede purely in practical terms. If the federal government ever became so weak that it could not prevent secession, then states would start jumping ship.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
