Breakaway republic in the U.S.A.

[No Me Ayudes Compadre]

Suppose the states of Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio decide that they'd be better off without the rest of the United States.

They tell Washington that they're on their own, and they satisfy the constitutional requirements for secession.

My questions are:

(1) How likely would the Federal Government be to let this happen?

(2) How viable would the new republic be?

(3) Assuming that Washington acquiesces and the republic thrives, what if anything would happen to the rest of the Union?

(4) What would the new republic be called (other than Bigtenia)?

------------------
"Where there is clarity, there is no choice. And where there is choice, there is misery. But then, why should I speak, since I know nothing?"

[LongHrn99]

What constitutional requirements are you talking about? IIR, after the civil war, the supreme court stated that you can't seceed: the Southern states never seceeded they shouldn't have their statehood revoked. So there's not much to discuss.

------------------
"There are many sweeping generalizations that are always true" -Space Ghost

[Persephone]

I can't answer the legal questions, but speaking as a Michiganian, I can say at least this much...

You'll never get Michigan and Ohio to agree on anything.

[Melatonin]

Cristi-
Yes, you will.

[neuro-trash grrrl]

Constitutional requirements for secession? I wasn't aware there were any. I'm no constitutional scholar or anything, and I admit that it's been a while since I read that great document, but I don't recall any clause that said "Hey, if any of you guys want to split at any time..." But like I said, I could be wrong.

In any event, those states seceding would immediately bring about the Second Civil War. If my home state of New Mexico seceded, it would be years before anybody noticed.

[No Me Ayudes Compadre]

Oops, clarification needed - By "constitutional requirements for secession" I meant those particular states' internal requirements.... to make sure it was the will of the people, etc.

Sorry...

[Momotaro]

There nowhere like Canada to secede in peace.

[TVeblen]

They're ain't no such animal that permits states to say, ptui I spit and leave. We fought a Civil War over it.

A lot of rights are reserved to the states and to local government. Of course some militia wackos interpret local as "me", but to continue...

Over that is a netting of federal control. At least in theory that's the stuff that applies to ALL Americans, no matter what state they live in, e.g. civil rights, environmental protection, supporting the interstate highway system, post office and military, etc. Since each state has its own government, the *application* of some of this stuff gets, shall we say, creative. And Washington is fond of making majesterial decisions and leaving *paying* up to the local yokels. This is what makes politics fun.

But splitting the union? Nah. I appreciate your example (Bigtenia?! grin!) but in fact the carnage of the Civil War ended slavery and in Shelby Foote's words, made us a "we". For good or ill, we have a clear centralized government in the way that Canada, for example, does not. (No value judgement, Canadians: observation!)

So secession is not a constitutional option, on the state or local level. We did that, and have a lot of dead to show for it. As far as "Bigtenia" seceeding, the viability issue is too complex to guess, militarily and diplomatically speaking. In a historical sense, they'd probably be some of the last to consider secession, anyway. Check out Civil War battlefields; Ohio, Michigan, Indiana all lost a lot of people to hold the union together.

But extrapolating your point, what about states in the southwest seceeding? After all, they were just plain swiped from Mexico to begin with, so there are some real historical and cultural reasons....

Veb
(intellectual speculation is not treason!)

[Monty]

Veb: you made an error in your last posting above. There were still slaves in the Union after the end of the Civil War.

[astorian]

The example of Michigan and Ohio breaking away is, of course, a silly hypothetical. But here's a thought that's NOT so hypothetical or far-fetched:

Every few years, Puerto Rico holds a referendum to decide whether they'll become a state, become an independent nation, or stay a commonwealth. "Stay a commonwealth" always seems to win. Now, the percentages vary from election to election, but the pattern seems to be that (roughly) 45% of Puerto Ricans want to keep things as they are, 40% want statehood, and 15% want independence. Right now, most mainland AMericans would be happy to grant them any of the three choices. Fact is, most mainland AMericans don't think or care much about Puerto Rico.

Well, suppose that, next time out, Puerto Rico votes to become a state. COngress quickly agrees, and Puerto Rico becomes the 51st state.

Problem is... within a few years, the anticipated economic benefits of statehood never materialize; taxes are higher; and some additional confrontations with the Navy get ugly.

Now, suddenly, the 15% who wanted independence are up in arms, and their numbers are growing. My question is, how eager/willing would the USA be to keep Puerto Rico in the Union, if things got ugly? Would we be as willing to shed blood over them as we were over the COnfederacy?

A better example would be Texas.

Texas's joining the Union in the 1840's included a provision allowing it to secede as a sovereign nation, should it choose to do so, or to divide itself into 2-5 smaller states.

IIRC, no one has fully resolved the issue of whether Texas lost these rights when it seceded & joined the CSA & then rejoined the Union, or if these rights still exist.

I suspect that As soon as the feds caught wind of a serious secessionist movement here, the issue would be decided (foregone conclusion - no way would the US allow TX to secede 150 years after being given the statutory right to do so) and Fort Bliss & Fort Hood would start sending out tanks, as the Air Force dropped the first leaflets over Austin, Houston, DFW, & San Antonio making it clear what the consequences would be...

In the meantime, it's fun to pretend... a la Lonestar's claim to be the national beer of Texas!



------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

IIRC, the Southern states felt while they had entered into the Union some decades earlier, that they retained many sovereign rights, including the right to secede.

Not being a constitutional scholar, I'm not sure that I agree--there are very specific requirements for admission (although I believe they were waived in the case of WV), and I would assume that the same requirements would apply to secession.

Regardless, court decisions after the Civil War said that we were one "indissoluble nation."

The movie (and book) "Birth of a Nation" echoes that sentiment: the end of individual state sovereignty, and the "birth" of a single nation.

Another question comes to mind:

If the Southern states had seceded, but not started a war, would the Northern states have sent troops marching?

[Polycarp]

The Constitutional requirements for admission are pretty simple:

1. Republican form of government.
2. Not be created out of another state without that state's consent.

(#2 was what was waived for West Virginia -- the gist of what Congress did, IIRC, was to pass a resolution requesting Virginia's permission. Since Virginia was at that point a member of the Confederacy, it didn't respond. Congress said, in essence, "silence means assent. The constitutional requirement has been satisfied" and admitted WV.

In point of fact, there are a bunch of non-constitutional hurdles, e.g., population size, lack of economic competition with economies of existent states, that a territory wishing statehood must get past. (Hawaii requested statehood in 1893, got it in 1898, because the sugar industry fought its admission due to Hawaii's sugar production, which would harm their profits.)

It would be interesting to see if Texas's treaty "right to secede" was ever brought up in 1861 when it declared independence and secession to join the Confederacy.

[whc.03grady]

Polycarp--Hawaii got statehood in 1898? Mmmmm.....No.
Texans--I've heard this "Texas has a special right to secede" line in so many various forms and from so many people that I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's an UL. Is it, or can someone quote the relevant line from Texas' constitution, or where ever?

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

The Constitution states that "New states may be admitted by the Congress...."

Again, I'm not a legal or Constitutional expert, but that implies to me that since a state can be admitted only by Congressional consent, that they can be "removed" only by Congressional consent--which the Southern states clearly did not have.

I don't remember the Texas admission specifically having a provision for secession. If it does, well, that was settled at the point of a gun a long time ago.

It does however, have provisions for the subdivision of Texas into as many as five states--without the consent of Congress. I have read that (in the admission document). You should be able to find it online without too much troublet. I did (some months ago).

BTW, even the subdivsion provisions would probably not pass a legal challenge today. Remember that laws don't mean what they say--they mean what judges say they say.

[DSYoungEsq]

One thing to keep in mind is that the tradeoff for not being able to secede is that you can't be kicked out, either. :)

There are times I think New Jersey and California remain states only because no one has figured out how to get rid of them... ;)

[Polycarp]

I said:
Hawaii got statehood in 1898.

Yes, they just kept it a secret until 1960. Actually, I meant admission as a territory and had a severe case of Monday-morning foggy head. Sorry!

[tracer]

whc03grady wrote:

I've heard this "Texas has a special right to secede" line in so many various forms and from so many people that I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's an UL.

Not only is this story an Urban Legend, but so's the story that Texas never officially entered the Union to begin with. (This argument was used by the so-called "Republic of Texas" members two years ago.) Apparently, Texas was approached by the U.S. some time in the 1840s, not to long after it won its independence from Mexico. Two proposals were on the table for Texas's legislature to consider: (1) become a state immediately, without having to go through being a U.S. territory, and retain the right to split up into as many as 5 smaller states later on; and (2) keep their status as an independent nation, but enter into a tight alliance with the U.S.. Texas chose option (1). A century-and-a-half later, the so-called "Republic of Texas" group based their entire hair-brained neo-secessionist platform on the mistaken theory that option (2) had been chosen by the Texas legislature instead.

Incidentally, the Republic of Texas bruhaha came out shortly after the State of Texas launched a televised ad campaign, whose slogan was: "Texas: It's Like a Whole Other Country." :)

------------------
Visit the Internet Stellar Database at www.stellar-database.com (http://www.stellar-database.com)

[Pickman's Model]

Veb: you made an error in your last posting above. There were still slaves in the Union after the end of the Civil War.

Where?

[Monty]

Maryland, for one area. Hey, don't tell me you think Lincoln freed the slaves in the areas not in rebellion!

[Boris B]

There were a few months between the end of the fighting and the passage of the 13th Amendment, which freed the slaves everywhere in the United States. Both events happened in 1865, but I don't remember offhand what the months were.

[Boris B]

Okay, here's the dates:
The 13th Amendment was passed by Congress (sending it to the states) in January 1865. Confederate forces (Richmond, Lee, and the rest) surrendered throughout April 1865. Honest Abe was gunned down in April. The 13th Amendment was ratified by the final state in December, 1865. So there were about eight months between the execution of the Emancipation Proclamation in the occupied territories, and the freeing of the states in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and possibly West Virginia. (I can't remember if West Virginia began its existence slave or free.)

Here are some sources for you all:
http://www.americancivilwar.com/tl/timeline.html http://www.fathermag.com/US_Constitution/13th_amendment.shtml

[SoxFan59]

For the definitive answer to the Constitutional issue, I take you, as any good attorney would, to a decision of the United States Supreme Court. The following quotation is from Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), a case where the issue was whether Texas was required to honor a series of bonds issued before the Civil War, but nullified by the Confederate government. In answering the question of whether Texas ever ceased to be a part of the United States via secession, the Court stated:

"Did Texas, in consecuence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?
It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. THE CONSTITUTION, IN ALL ITS PROVISIONS, LOOKS TO AN INDESTRUCTABLE UNION, COMPOSED OF INDESTRUCTABLE STATES.
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the 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. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
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. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion."




------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

[Boris B]

It sounds like Supreme Court retroactively struck the Emancipation Proclamation down. Lincoln realized that he had no power to abolish slavery in any Union state. The justification at the time was that the Confederate states were another country, so Lincoln could make decisions in them as a conquering power (once they were conquered, of course).

If the Confederacy never really did secede, and the invading Union armies were just the national armed forces, rather than a conquering power, then the martial law, reconstruction governments, Emancipation Proclamation, Freedmen's Bureaus, etc., were all unconstitutional.

The legislatures elected under martial law, with carpetbaggers and illegally freed slaves voting and former rebel soldiers barred from voting, would also have been invalid. So the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which were ratified only with the consent of the reconstruction legislatures would also have been invalid.

In short, I disagree with the 1868 Supreme Court on this issue. The secessions were legal; Fort Sumter was an act of war; the Confederacy was a conquered power we could deal with as we liked.

[SoxFan59]

In short, I disagree with the 1868 Supreme Court on this issue. The secessions were legal; Fort Sumter was an act of war; the Confederacy was a conquered power we could deal with as we liked.>>>>Boris

That, and 50 cents, will buy you a pack of gum.


------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

[tracer]

Damn, gum is getting expensive these days.

[Boris B]

Well, I didn't expect your hair would turn white. A lot of SDMB discussions gravitate to the U.S. Constitution and its interpretations. If somebody can say the government covered up an alien crash landing in Arizona, I can disagree with the Supreme Court. Plus my favorite gum is Black Jack, which is more than 50 cents at the tobacco shop.

[Polycarp]

New Mexico, Boris. You want Contestant #3 to come flame you?? ;)

[Boris B]

Well, Arizona isn't that new, and it's practically part of the United States anyway.

Why do I always get these things wrong? I'm used to Easterners getting Western states all mixed up, but I'm a Westerner. I went to college in D.C. where all the Easterners used to point at us leftcoasters and laugh. They always asked me how I got to the East coast. Eventually I gave up trying to explain international airports, and allowed that I'd had a harrowing journey by covered wagon.

But I digress. The point is, I had a nice classmate from Salt Lake City. Once I referred to her home state as ... Wyoming. That deflating sound you here is a bass trombone playing portamento. At least I know that Alaska isn't located in a little box off the coast of California.

[Monty]

Boris: are you on crack? The justification never was "the Confederacy was a separate county." They were "the areas currently in rebellion" at the time.

Criminy!

[Boris B]

monty
Wait a minute I dropped one of my little vials. There we go. Ahh, that's good. Hhhmm. Okay, now I'm a little shaky, but I'll give it a shot.

Sure, Lincoln used the "those areas now in rebellion" verbage, but the question remains were the Confederate States separate countries or U.S. states. The President can't just go around banning things in states by decree. The President can order the armed forces around, and conquering powers' armed forces are pretty much soveign in occupied territories.

Sure, Lincoln felt the secession was not valid due probably to "eternal union" rhetoric, but that's where I disagree with him. After the war ... wait a minute my lighter isn't working ... there was controversy between the radical Republicans who claimed the South could be treated as a prostrate enemy, and Andrew Johnson who felt that they were just regular states in which some crooks had been subdued.

My point was that people who invoke the 13th through 15th Amendments obviously believe they are valid, and I don't see how they could be valid if they were ratified with the help of illegally-imposed legislatures. The shakes are starting to wear off now.

[SoxFan59]

My point was that people who invoke the 13th through 15th Amendments obviously believe they are valid, and I don't see how they could be valid if they were ratified with the help of illegally-imposed legislatures. The shakes are starting to wear off now.>>> Boris

I may be wrong, but I thought 13, 14 , and 15 were ratified by the necessary states in the states who stayed loyal to the Union, but still counting the Confederate States. That is to say, there were enough states that stayed loyal to the Union or that were admitted during the War to cover the two-thirds number, INCLUDING the seceding states. So, the Supremes would still be right.




------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

[HubZilla]

Suppose the states of Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio decide that they'd be better off without the rest of the United States.

(4) What would the new republic be called (other than Bigtenia)? (my bolding)

I think Iowa, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania might be upset they weren't included. Would South Bend, Indiana then secede from that newly-formed republic?

------------------
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument" - William McAdoo

[Polycarp]

So in essence, SoxFan, you're saying that the Supremes had a hit in 1868 with "Someday We'll Be Together"?? ;)

[SoxFan59]

Actually, Mr. Carp, it should be "Always and Forever."

------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

[Boris B]

Kansas was admitted to the Union as the 34th State in 1861. To be added to the Constitution, an amendment would have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states, or 26. 11 states seceded, 23 did not. The votes of three seceding state would have been needed to ratify the 13th-15th Amendments.

Of course, by now it doesn't matter if the martial law was legal or not, since the Amendments have been recognized as part of the Constitution for so long. I suppose it's mainly of academic interest.

[Strainger]

Pardon me if these questions have already been answered; I was just skimming through.

Boris B(I can't remember if West Virginia began its existence slave or free.)According to Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson, one of the conditions surrounding WV's admission to the Union was that they had to get rid of their slaves.

Regarding the existence of slaves in the South after the Civil War: They did exist illegally until at least the 1920's, except it was refered to as "peonage." (Thanks, GregAtlanta!)

[SoxFan59]

Mea Culpa, I was calculating the number needed to ratify the amendment as two thirds, not three fourths.

Looking at some of the other history, it appears that Congress, while recognizing the Supreme Courts view that sesession was a nullity (and therefore "void ab initio" to use the technical term), the fact that the states were in Rebellion allowed both Congress and the Courts to play both sides of this issue. Whether all of it can be justified or harmonized would take more time than I have to look into it.

But it is clear that the defeated southern states were treated like an occupied foreign nation. congress required that each of the states be readmitted to the Union (which would go against the Texas v. White quote in a purists sense. Yet, I think it can be reconciled in the same way a member of a condominium association forfeits thier rights when they fail to pay their association fees. To have their voting rights restored, they just have to bring themselves into "good standing.") Its not a perfect comparison, but Congress basically required that the former confederate states bring themselves back into good standing.

In order for reunification the confederate states needed to accept the following terms:

Constitutional Conventions elected by blacks and loyal whites were to frame constitutions guaranteeing male suffrage including blacks.
The federal Congress needed to individually ratify these constitutions.

Qualified voters in each confederate state were to elect state legislatures that would ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. After ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment, states could apply for readmission in Congress. What was once the Confederate States was broken down into five military districts with a Major General in command of each area's reconstruction.

Tennessee was the first state to rejoin the Union in 1866. (Tennessee's secession vote was suspect to begin with; there is some good authority to show that had not some rabid secessionists grabbed control of Tennessee state government, Tennesse would have remained in the Union.

North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama were admitted in 1868 and by 1870, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas were admitted.

Eventually, then, all of the former Confederate States did adopt the 14th amendment, and by applying for readmission, consented to the 13th.


------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"