Break Away

[BrianH]

I've been curious about something in the last few years. I'm not planning anything, but have been curious regardless.

As far as legalities go, could states, legally succeed from the Union. Since annexation was always "voluntary." And that states were considerered "free and independent states."? Is there anything stated that says the states cannot succeed? I could reserach this on my own, but I figured just asking would generate discussion.

 

[manifold]

I've been curious about something in the last few years. I'm not planning anything, but have been curious regardless.

As far as legalities go, could states, legally succeed from the Union. Since annexation was always "voluntary." And that states were considerered "free and independent states."? Is there anything stated that says the states cannot succeed? I could reserach this on my own, but I figured just asking would generate discussion.

For the record, the word is secede, not succeed, but I knew what you meant.

And the answer is no, they can't.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not since the Civil War.
After the Civil War, the United States adopted the 14th Amendment, which included a definition of national citizenship.

 

[Abelian Sea]

could states, legally succeed from the Union.

They can sure try.

Didn't work out so well last time, though.

Damn uppity states, thinkin' they all "free and independent" an' shit. Don't they know this place is a closed shop? You want to operate between Canada and Mexico, you got to be in the union. And I really mean "got to."

Legality? Eh. That can be changed/clarified to reflect this reality.


(edit: not that I'm bitter about the War of Northern Aggression or anything, and it is sure nice having a country as wealthy and powerful as unity has enabled this one to be, but there is no doubt that the Fed is really in charge here and it will suppercede your laws and, if necessary, burn down your cities if you cross it on something it really cares about)

 

[BrianH]

For the record, the word is secede, not succeed, but I knew what you meant.

And the answer is no, they can't.

oops...that was a mispelled doosey. Sorry. LOL...I must have had success on the brain. LOL

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Civil War settled the issue and I believe in 1869 the SUpreme Court also ruled that States have no right to leave the Union with out the permission of the Majority.

Except the original 13 and Tennessee, Kentucky and I think Alabama every State has been made from land the Government OWNED. They may have voted to join but they can not leave without permission. Those three states were made from land given to the Federal Government by the States.

 

[BrianH]

The Civil War settled the issue and I believe in 1869 the SUpreme Court also ruled that States have no right to leave the Union with out the permission of the Majority.

Except the original 13 and Tennessee, Kentucky and I think Alabama every State has been made from land the Government OWNED. They may have voted to join but they can not leave without permission. Those three states were made from land given to the Federal Government by the States.

YEah, some people still boast that Texas can secede , and I tell them the same thing. Well, we tried in 1861, and that didn't seem to work out for us.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

YEah, some people still boast that Texas can secede , and I tell them the same thing. Well, we tried in 1861, and that didn't seem to work out for us.

Texas joined also so might have some argument however part of the deal was a forgiveness of huge debts by Texas with the US.

Once the Constitution was ratified it became moot, a majority is needed to leave just like a majority is needed to join. The Civil War settled the issue legally. Of course that does not mean a new Civil War could not happen and change the landscape.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Not since the Civil War.
After the Civil War, the United States adopted the 14th Amendment, which included a definition of national citizenship.

Section 1 was written for former slave to ensure citizenship. It had nothing to do with secession. Section 3 dealt rebellious individuals serving in government, but I have read no "laws" denying the States the right to secede. Just obscure court decisions. A state can secede, but said state better be ready to face the consequences.

In all actuality, Lincoln was suspect constitutionally in raising an army. He preserved the Union and did so with Just cause, but most constitutional scholars will tend to take the side of the South legally, but the North morally. Either way the war was bound to happen as both sides had pros and cons to their cases.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Do yourself a favor and at least read what you google. Section 1 was written for former slave to ensure citizenship. It had nothing to do with secession. Section 3 dealt rebellious individuals serving in government, but I have read no "laws" denying the States the right to secede. Just obscure court decisions. A state can secede, but said state better be ready to face the consequences.

In all actuality, Lincoln was suspect constitutionally in raising an army. He preserved the Union and did so with Just cause, but most constitutional scholars will tend to take the side of the South legally, but the North morally. Either way the war was bound to happen as both sides had pros and cons to their cases.

Upon rereading this thread, I remember (promted by the Gunny) a case we read in Constitutional Law in my frst year. I looked up the case that the Gunny refered to it was Texas vs. White. Court's decision:

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
Union, composed of indestructible 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. ... 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."

This was in 1869 and I have heard legal scholars tear ths apart and is widely considered to be full of holes. Take it as you want, but a constitution did not stop the first Civil War, and it probably wouldn't stop a second one, should it arise. The legality issue could go either way.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

YEah, some people still boast that Texas can secede , and I tell them the same thing. Well, we tried in 1861, and that didn't seem to work out for us.

Hell, Texas acts like it own country anyway. You can always tell when there is a Texan in the room, You just can't tell him much.

 

[BrianH]

Hell, Texas acts like it own country anyway. You can always tell when there is a Texan in the room, You just can't tell him much.

LOL...hey now... (joking)

 

[Paulie]

Of course that does not mean a new Civil War could not happen and change the landscape.

Here's hoping.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here's hoping.

Shooting starts all those liberals in lala land are gonna be clueless. No guns and depending on others to protect their asses. The cities will burn. Won't be a pretty picture.

 

[Paulie]

Shooting starts all those liberals in lala land are gonna be clueless. No guns and depending on others to protect their asses. The cities will burn. Won't be a pretty picture.

Well, REAL change is never easy or pretty. Short of armed revolution, this country is a goner.

 

[midcan5]

This always strikes me as funny as often you'll hear of, say south Jersey seceding from north jersey or some such nonsense. Seems people will never be happy - good article below.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

As far as legalities go, could states, legally succeed from the Union.

AFAIK, This issue was never settled by law, only by a fiat of force.
The 10th amendment states that unless prohibited by the constitution, the states can do what they want.
Secession isn't prohibited by the Constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This always strikes me as funny as often you'll hear of, say south Jersey seceding from north jersey or some such nonsense.

How did West Virginia come to be...?

 

[BrianH]

AFAIK, This issue was never settled by law, only by a fiat of force.
The 10th amendment states that unless prohibited by the constitution, the states can do what they want.
Secession isn't prohibited by the Constitution.

Yeah I know, I was just curious to see everyone else's take on it. There's a few other threads on the boards that have transformed to this topic. Some people actually still believe the whole Northern propoganda that teaches that the North was fighting against this valiant struggle to end the opression of the slaves in the South. It was quite a bit more complicated than that, and was not strictly about the owning of slaves, a factor, but not the only source of tension.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah I know, I was just curious to see everyone else's take on it. There's a few other threads on the boards that have transformed to this topic. Some people actually still believe the whole Northern propoganda that teaches that the North was fighting against this valiant struggle to end the opression of the slaves in the South. It was quite a bit more complicated than that, and was not strictly about the owning of slaves, a factor, but not the only source of tension.

The court case mentioned here is hooey. Yes, the court rules that the association with the union is permanent, but has the weakest of weak reasoning behind it -- indeed, this ruling is nothing but another form of 'force', with the result of the decision having been determined, and then an argument formed around it.

If I were arguing for TX, I would ask:
-Where is the Article I section 9 prohibition against secession?
-Absent same, how is secession not a right retained by the states under the 10th?
-Where does the Constitution specifically state that the association between the states, the other states, and the Federal government exist in perpituity?