A question of secession

[Evangelical]

I think the secession debate (let us imagine back in 1850 or so when regionalism was real hot) would hinge on the question:

"If it took a majority of 3/4ths of the states to create the Union, can it take a minority of states to disolve it?"

I actually can't even conceive of how the debate would rage back then over that question. I support the idea of secession, and ultimately power will decide what is law, so secession is "legal" so long as the states are more powerful than any other entity that would hold the Union together by force.

If 49 states voted to be communist dictatorships, even that remaining minority of 1 would have every right to protect its people from such an usurpation.

But, constitutionally speaking, a state did not enter the Union alone. It entered the Union with a majority of other states, so I don't think constitutionally a state can justify its secession. That is to say, even if every last voter, all 100%, wanted to secede, the only legal reason you can conceive for secession is survival. If the Union were going down a path no prudent or rational person could follow, and that state felt it necessary to bail out. It would hardly be able to claim a right to secession, however, based upon the constitution they signed as a Union.

Any other angles anyone can discuss this from?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think the secession debate (let us imagine back in 1850 or so when regionalism was real hot) would hinge on the question:

"If it took a majority of 3/4ths of the states to create the Union, can it take a minority of states to disolve it?"

I actually can't even conceive of how the debate would rage back then over that question. I support the idea of secession, and ultimately power will decide what is law, so secession is "legal" so long as the states are more powerful than any other entity that would hold the Union together by force.

If 49 states voted to be communist dictatorships, even that remaining minority of 1 would have every right to protect its people from such an usurpation.

But, constitutionally speaking, a state did not enter the Union alone. It entered the Union with a majority of other states, so I don't think constitutionally a state can justify its secession. That is to say, even if every last voter, all 100%, wanted to secede, the only legal reason you can conceive for secession is survival. If the Union were going down a path no prudent or rational person could follow, and that state felt it necessary to bail out. It would hardly be able to claim a right to secession, however, based upon the constitution they signed as a Union.

Any other angles anyone can discuss this from?

In 1869 the Supreme Court ruled that no State has the right to unilaterally leave the Union. It further ruled that leaving the Union could be accomplished through a frame work created and adopted by the Congress. I personally would require that 3/4ths of the States not leaving had to vote in favor.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

First off, why should we deny any people this separation if it's what they want? Think of it as a husband who beats his wife into submission so that she won't leave him. Are we that tyrannical?

Secondly, what part of the Constitution stipulates that 3/4 of the states consent is required to leave? No part. And why do they care? It doesn't affect me in Ohio if Texas chooses to secede, so why should I demand that they stay in the Union? What right do I have to try and force them?

 

[Evangelical]

Regarding secession I think your statement of those remaining in the Union voting to allow the rest to leave is a good call only if a near majority of states were remaining, otherwise too few states could force too many remaining in the Union. Also, the ratification of the US Constitution did require 3/4ths of the states to vote, so the obviousness there is there already existed something involving 4/4ths of the states...that would be the Articles, which were a permanent Union. So did the ratification of the US Constitution intend a less permanent Union? Probably...but it was not clear on that. The rest is my short rant of the supreme court.

The Supreme Court also happened to make that ruling when 11 states were currently under military occupation and had no civilian governments. So, do you really think what the Supreme Court says, matters?

The Supreme Court also said that a State has to raise their State Employee's wages to the Federal Minimum Wage despite the restrictions of the 10th Amendment, and despite the warnings of the 9th Amendment against over-reaching of Federal Power.

The Supreme Court hardly is a body worth trusting, often times it is fairly asinine in its decisions.

Where does the Supreme Court find the power to deny a local School District (an independent Government of the Federal Government, within a sovereign State), to teach the Bible?

Don't you think it's odd that the Supreme Court says that public schools cannot teach the Bible or encourage Christian Prayer? Even though the very men who wrote the Constitution sent their Children to public schools that used the Bible to teach how to read, write and had regular daily prayer?

 

[Evangelical]

First off, why should we deny any people this separation if it's what they want? Think of it as a husband who beats his wife into submission so that she won't leave him. Are we that tyrannical?

Secondly, what part of the Constitution stipulates that 3/4 of the states consent is required to leave? No part. And why do they care? It doesn't affect me in Ohio if Texas chooses to secede, so why should I demand that they stay in the Union? What right do I have to try and force them?

Well actually it does effect you, especially in Ohio, if Texas seceded.

If states were seceding there is animosity between them they can thus be considered hostile and doubtfully their relations would improve. If Texas were to secede likely Louisiana would follow owed to closeness of economies, if not, likely Texas could inflame a situation in Louisiana to secure New Orleans as that port is important to Texas, as well as to many other Midwestern states.

The Civil War was fought in large part because the Union couldn't suffer the loss of tax revenue (the south was then 2/3rds of the profitable production of the Union, without debt) to pay off all the debts the north had accumulated in their industrialization. The other reason was to prevent the "balkanization" of the Americas and be weakened against foreign powers of Europe. The third reason was to secure the Mississippi for trade, because a hostile power owning that river system would control the north-west ordinance's (Ohio's et al.) economies.

Also, the major connection between the West and the East was through a seceding state.

So a lot of economic and geopolitical concerns come into this question.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

First off, why should we deny any people this separation if it's what they want? Think of it as a husband who beats his wife into submission so that she won't leave him. Are we that tyrannical?

Secondly, what part of the Constitution stipulates that 3/4 of the states consent is required to leave? No part. And why do they care? It doesn't affect me in Ohio if Texas chooses to secede, so why should I demand that they stay in the Union? What right do I have to try and force them?

Well actually it does effect you, especially in Ohio, if Texas seceded.

If states were seceding there is animosity between them they can thus be considered hostile and doubtfully their relations would improve. If Texas were to secede likely Louisiana would follow owed to closeness of economies, if not, likely Texas could inflame a situation in Louisiana to secure New Orleans as that port is important to Texas, as well as to many other Midwestern states.

The Civil War was fought in large part because the Union couldn't suffer the loss of tax revenue (the south was then 2/3rds of the profitable production of the Union, without debt) to pay off all the debts the north had accumulated in their industrialization. The other reason was to prevent the "balkanization" of the Americas and be weakened against foreign powers of Europe. The third reason was to secure the Mississippi for trade, because a hostile power owning that river system would control the north-west ordinance's (Ohio's et al.) economies.

Also, the major connection between the West and the East was through a seceding state.

So a lot of economic and geopolitical concerns come into this question.

I fail to see how Texas seceding affects me in any way that gives me the authority to give or refuse my consent to their doing so.

As to there being hostility, why? I fail to see why we couldn't remain friendly and trade with seceded states the way we do any other country.

As to the rest of your post, I'm well aware why the south seceded and why Lincoln decided to wage war on them.

 

[Evangelical]

How can you consider there being anything but animosity against seceding states? Why else would they have seceded? The idea of mutual respect is far fetched though not improbable, but even over time as they diverge in their economic objectives things will complicate.

 

[Toro]

How can you consider there being anything but animosity against seceding states? Why else would they have seceded? The idea of mutual respect is far fetched though not improbable, but even over time as they diverge in their economic objectives things will complicate.

Most countries that split apart during the 1990s did not descend into war, with a few notable exceptions. And those that did generally did so because of ethnic animosities that went back as far as 1000 years.

Also, the world is getting smaller, not bigger, as technology and globalization further entwines countries economies together. That is true of the countries that split apart over the past 20 years and would be true of any state that separated.

 

[editec]

I think the secession debate (let us imagine back in 1850 or so when regionalism was real hot) would hinge on the question:

"If it took a majority of 3/4ths of the states to create the Union, can it take a minority of states to disolve it?"

I actually can't even conceive of how the debate would rage back then over that question. I support the idea of secession, and ultimately power will decide what is law, so secession is "legal" so long as the states are more powerful than any other entity that would hold the Union together by force.

If 49 states voted to be communist dictatorships, even that remaining minority of 1 would have every right to protect its people from such an usurpation.

But, constitutionally speaking, a state did not enter the Union alone. It entered the Union with a majority of other states, so I don't think constitutionally a state can justify its secession. That is to say, even if every last voter, all 100%, wanted to secede, the only legal reason you can conceive for secession is survival. If the Union were going down a path no prudent or rational person could follow, and that state felt it necessary to bail out. It would hardly be able to claim a right to secession, however, based upon the constitution they signed as a Union.

Any other angles anyone can discuss this from?

All it takes is a new CONSTIUTIONAL CONVENTION.

Get enough STATE LEGISLATURES to call for a new constiutional convention and they can rewrite the contract between the states and the Feds.

No illegal succession is necessary.

A Constiutional Convention of the states could LEGALLY disolve the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT if it choose to do so.