The BIG question lately - CAN STATES SECEDE?

discussion

[RED SOUTH]

Article VII sets out the provision for original ratification, and that Article IV empowers Congress to admit new States, but that no provision of the Constitution authorizes a state to leave the Union or bars it from doing so. The constitution does not say anything about states leaving.

[TurtleUp]

Thanks, but Madison was there. I'll take his opinion and that of the Supreme Court on whether unilateral secession was wrong.

Many perspectives met, and they compromised. The voice of a single member has no legal force if different from the actual document. As for the Supremes, that's the same Court that says prayer at high school football games is wrong, but prayer at a high school graduation is okay? Sorry, but I'm not impressed with your source, even if they find something in Kenyan law that says you're right.

In your analogy only one party is declaring the marriage over. What's to stop the other side from declaring it isn't? What makes one right and the other wrong?

Either party can unilaterally end a relationship. When a dating relationship or a marriage ends, refusing to comply with the other person's wishes to separate is stalking, and it's wrong because individual rights do not extend to power over others. With a union of states, the same is true. Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. When the people of a state decide through their elected representatives, through public referendum, or through other due process that they no longer consent to being governed by the federal government, that government loses any just powers over those people. From that point on, any attempt to exercise federal power over the citizens of that state is immoral, an attempt at tyranny. When it comes to a conflict between a tyrant and free people, I already know which side I'll back.

"Granted, Obama could turn it into a civil war, but that would be his choice..." The war would lie in your hands.

No. The war would be the fault of the thug in our White House, if that socialist turns out to be a traditional national socialist who uses our military against civilians. Our Community-Organizer-in-Chief is by nature evil, and he's admitted that he has no problem killing unborn babies or unwanted newborn babies, but I am hoping that his evil is the cowardly form, and that he doesn't have the backbone to stand up to adults who can defend themselves. My impression is that advocating the murder of people under one week old is as big a risk as he can stomach. I don't think it will come to war, even if one or more states secede.

[Ben Mugged]

1763 Smallpox outbreak at Fort Pitt Main article: Siege of Fort Pitt There is one disputed incident in which British soldiers in North America may have discussed intentionally infecting native people as part of a war effort. During Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763, a number of Native Americans launched a widespread war against British soldiers and settlers in an attempt to drive the British out of the Great Lakes region. In what is now western Pennsylvania, Native Americans (primarily Delawares) laid siege to Fort Pitt on June 22, 1763. Surrounded and isolated, William Trent, the commander of Fort Pitt gave representatives of the besieging Delawares two blankets and a handkerchief from the Pittsburgh smallpox hospital, "out of our regard to them" when the two Delaware men came to talk to him.[15] There are also letters between two other British officers, Jeffrey Amherst and Henry Bouquet, explicitly advocating the idea of using using smallpox-infested blankets to kill Indians.[15] There is, however, some dispute over whether Trent was acting with the intent expressed by Bouquet and Amherst. Whatever Trent's intent, a number of recent scholars consider the evidence connecting his gift of blankets to the eventual smallpox outbreak to be very doubtful. These scholars believe that the disease was most likely spread by native warriors returning from attacks on infected white settlements.[16] In other words, while some officers did want to use what would now be called biological warfare, smallpox was so widespread and so easy to catch that it would be difficult to separate the results of intentional action from the natural spread of the disease. Others attribute the smallpox outbreak to the common Indian practice of digging up recent European graves to retrieve the clothes of the those buried--some of whom had died from smallpox. [edit] Vaccination After the Edward Jenner's 1796 confirmation of the efficacy of smallpox vaccination, the inoculation technique became more well known and smalpox became less deadly in the United States (and elsewhere). Vaccination was used on many colonists and on natives. Although situations such as the 1831 inoculation of Yankton Sioux at Sioux Agency (the Santee Sioux refused inoculation and many died) protected some during that outbreak and others, the disease often was carried beyond containment attempts or trade demands broke quarantines.[4] [edit] Ward Churchill's claims about the 1837 Mandan outbreak Further information: 1837-38 smallpox epidemic The Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado at Boulder reviewed a claim by Ward Churchill, comparing to the cited source his claim that in 1837 the United States Army deliberately infected Mandan Indians by distributing blankets that had been exposed to smallpox, and reported "Professor Churchill therefore misrepresents what Thornton says." Most other historians who have looked at the same event disagree with Churchill's interpretation of the historical evidence, and believe no deliberate introduction of smallpox occurred at the time and place Churchill claimed it had.[17][18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples#Deliberate_infection.3F

Now I recognize your arguments as those of the discredited moron Ward Churchill.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

They formed the first “free state” on the continent. The state of Franklin. They comprised the overmountain men, the ones that won the Revolutionary War. And during the War of Northern Agression it was the 26th of North Carolina that gave the most blood. The 26th of North Carolina, the largest independent militia in the United States today.

I suspect that more of the descendants of the Overmountain Men fought for the Union than for the Confederacy in the War of Southern Stupidity. On the other hand, there was a great deal of overlap in the southern Tories of the Revolution and the idiots who led Dixie into secession and rebellion in 1860-61. In both cases, the slaveowners showed more devotion and patriotism to their bank balance than to their nation.

[Non-Sequitur]

What would happen if Texas, for instance, declared itself independent? Short of an act of war, there really isn't the US could do to stop it, and once there is a war, the question of the legality of secession is then reopened.

How would that be accomplished? Do you hold a referendum and find out how many want independence and how many don't? What would be the cut-off - would it be a simple majority or a super majority? What if it was regionalized, for example if east Texas voted overwhelmingly to stay but west Texas voted overwhelmingly to go. Would you split the state and leave with only the western part? And what about the federal property in the state, the national debt, social security and medicare, how do you settle those?

[Non-Sequitur]

The voice of a single member has no legal force if different from the actual document.

OK, then how about quoting from voices saying that unilateral secession was legal?

Sorry, but I'm not impressed with your source, even if they find something in Kenyan law that says you're right.

Even if I found something in Kenyan law, at least I would be quoting law. You spout nothing more substantial than your own opinion and expect us to take it as gospel. Hardly impressive, to say the least.

Either party can unilaterally end a relationship.

Not in the eyes of the law.

When a dating relationship or a marriage ends, refusing to comply with the other person's wishes to separate is stalking, and it's wrong because individual rights do not extend to power over others.

Walking out on a marriage unilaterally is abandonment and does not automatically end the legal partnership.

When the people of a state decide through their elected representatives, through public referendum, or through other due process that they no longer consent to being governed by the federal government, that government loses any just powers over those people.

"The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains." - James Madison

In your view, the compact is a one sided deal. Good only for when you say it's good, and dissolved when you decide it's dissolved. So then when Madison asked, "An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them," then how can he be wrong?

[RobRoy]

It is not only true, but without knowing it, Fred’s article exposes one of the results of the underlying flaw in fallen man that resulted in our need for Jesus, his sacrificial death, and ressurection.

[Sloth]

Ummm, didn’t we settle this question, oh, around 144 years ago?

I think you mean 233 years ago.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

I’d like to live again in Mr. Liddy’s world.

All in all, I would too. But this world is a vale of tears and the old days were no Utopia either. It was hard work and life was generally shorter and filled with more disease than today. But the old days generally had religion has a consolation. If religion is the opiate of the masses, a notion I disagree with, it was a more spiritually consoling opiate for a hard physical existence than television and popular culture is today for the spiritual starvation of an physically overfed people.

[Darth Gill]

The civil war states demonstrated how NOT to secede(ie. attacking Fort Sumter). The main problem with the first secession in my opinion was failing to gain or rather maintain northern sympathy and ambivalence.

Today, if this were to be tried again, a good public relations battle will have to be fought - the states seceding must appear as victims in the public eye rather than provocateurs.

One also must consider that differing demographics today as well. The states in my opinion are much more homogeneous in their divisions than they once were. Sure there were always southern and northern sympathizers on both sides of the battle lines, but today blue states as well as red states are sometimes nearly equally divided amongst both sides of the issues. It’s almost as if it’s a red county (rural usually) vs. blue county issue. But even many counties are split 50/50. It’s a very dicey situation.

This is a cultural conflict and secession would only be a partial answer to resolution. Eventually mass migrations of people would have to take place.

Looking at a possible solution to this whole mess we find ourselves in today is difficult. I’m not so sure there is an answer. The culture war appears to be unwinnable and the only thing that can save it is a return to family values - a return to God. That will require a miracle.

Brandan

[Publius Valerius]

I think that you're searching for rules when there wouldn't necessarily be any rules. As far as the mechanics, the State could go about it any darn way it pleased--after all, there is no one to answer to.

I would suspect, though, secession would occur by a resolution passed by both houses of the legislature. You might very well have Virginia situations where parts of the state peel off, but these are questions that can't be answered until they happen. There's no precedent for this type of stuff.

[macebowman]

And you mentioned the word “stupidity”.

Do you honestly believe that after Butcher Tarleton ran ransacking through here any Tories could have stayed? That is rich, really rich. Slaveowners—what, them leftover tories living in Appalachia had slaves too?

Why don’t you look up Fanny Wright. I guess those slave owning tories must have lost some of thier slaves to Fanny at the Nashoba Commune

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashoba_Commune

And when you done, well they must of been a whole bunch of overmountain men descendents among this group.

http://www.tennessee.gov/tsla/history/military/pension.htm

[macebowman]

Nice try. I merely documented the case during the French and Indian War, which admitedly was done by British troops. I will not support the argument that American forces did it against the Mandan. Dismissing one will not destroy the documented letters of the other.

[Publius Valerius]

Today, if this were to be tried again, a good public relations battle will have to be fought

Yes. But I think the main difference is that I don't see the political will from the remainder of the Union to do what it takes to stop a secession, which is war. I find it hard to believe that San Francisco hippies are going to be willing to enlist and go kill Texans so Texas can come back as part of the Union. I suspect most of the liberals would be more than happy to see Texas go, and I think few of the ones less than happy would be willing to die for Texas to rejoin the country.

[Darth Gill]

Good point! I think though if Texas secedes - many more states will follow and with half the country gone, economic conditions may force violence. It’s too difficult to say. Both sides also posess nuclear weapons. It would be a big mess - for sure!

[RobRoy]

This is an interesting discussion for me but, ultimately, I think seccession is ridiculous. If this nation were to actually fragment, it would all collapse. I’m talking anarchy.

Besides, there is an interesting lesson in the Harry Turtledove books where we are fighting WWI, e3xcept the south had won the Civil war, and after the civil war, the British and French sided with the CSA and the Germans sided with the USA. What did this mean for WWI? It meant there were TWO american fronts: One between the USA and CSA and another betweeen the USA and Candada.

If this country were to split, there would literally be hell to pay, and it would be paid in blood - lots of it.

[Little Ray]

Only a fool would assume, even for a second, that the Federal Government would hesitate to force Texas back into the Union at bayonet point.

[Publius Valerius]

I don’t think you can make the assumption, but I think that it is a legitimate question to wonder whether the political will exists. Heck, we are fighting a successful war in Iraq that has involved a small number of deaths and it is hugely unpopular.

Do you think a war against Texas would be more popular or less popular than our war in Iraq?

[Little Ray]

It is unpopular ‘cause the Libutards and their allies in the media have declared it so. An honest press or a loyal Hollyweird could have turned that around in few weeks.

Can you IMAGINE the propaganda against a seceding state? About the “poor oppressed minorities and political dissidents?” All the pro-war movies that were not made during the current war would suddenly be in production. We'd have all sorts of movies with the heroes killing droves of drooling white bigots (that's how the see us, ya know...). Editorials would demand war on every show and in every issue of every paper or magazine. It would be ugly, to put it mildly.

No. Its pretty much certain that the will would exist or be manufactured to go to war against a seceding state.

[Non-Sequitur]

I think that you're searching for rules when there wouldn't necessarily be any rules. As far as the mechanics, the State could go about it any darn way it pleased--after all, there is no one to answer to.

Not even the people of the state?

[Darth Gill]

I’m not certain on that - peaceful relations could be maintained between the split nations if there was a peaceful secession process.

I think if the South would have won, it’s quite possible due to technological and industrial advances that slavery would have been eliminated PRIOR to World War era. Subsequently and eventually, cultural similarities between the USA and CSA would have led to peace between the two nations and the allies would be joined with each other against world tyranny.

Secession may be the answer unless the federal government is put back in its rightful place by the states. I think talk of secession is healthy and reminds both the states and the federal government of their constitutional restrictions. What secession leads to or what it will look like is anybody’s guess at this point. When the federal government is bankrupt here in a few years, secession may become a moot point. The federal government simply will not have any teeth to enforce its draconian laws against the STILL UNITED states and their rediscovered sovereignty.