I’ve wondered about this for a while, and the Civil War thread convinced me to post about it. Let’s say California, for whatever reasons, wants to secede from the US to build their own country. Why can’t they do it? The US being a ‘free country,’ why can’t anyone quit if they want to? Any forts, roads, law enforcement agencies, etc. have been built with tax money, though they may be asked to pay for the land, and a few other service fees. If they decided to set up a democratic government, maybe they could even receive aid from the US to help in reconstruction! Hale the Confederate State of California!
That’s what the Civil War settled, for better or for worse. The United States is like a roach motel. States can get into the Union, but they can’t get out.
I realize the Civil War is the engraved stone in the issue, but what’s the underlying argument as to why?
Just like your Mom, the US Army says “Because I said so.”
You can’t get out of the Union unless everybody agrees. Presumably, this would require one state to ask the other 49 for permission.
If you could just come and go as you please, the Federal government wouldn’t have much authority.
Because the U.S. Supreme Court says you can’t secede without the consent of the rest of the Union: *State of Texas v. White* (1868):
A couple of past threads where the question has arisen:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=119582
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=95550
That 140 year old legal descision reads like the King James Bible, it’s hard to pick up on exactly what it’s saying. Is it talking about someone who was denied rights during The War of Northern Aggression? Or about Texas citizens wanting to be gaurunteed of civil rights after the war? What was the beef that was brought before the Court to require this descision?
(And, No! I can’t spell)
When I was mearly a wee young Texan in elementary school, we were taught that only Texas and California could legally secede because they were the only two soveriegn nations brought into the Union. They still needed a 2/3rds majority of States (popular vote? or congress?) to do so.
Clarification please.
At the time of the Civil War there were two main arguments against secession. One was made in an editorial in the Wheeling Daily Intelligencer on 24 December 1860. The gist of this argument was that the people of South Carolina, and other seceding states, had participated in the recently concluded General Election. They had been given every opportunity to present their side and elect a candidate more to their liking than was Lincoln. They lost, and by all the rules of our national government they were bound to accept the results of that election. They refused to do so and chose to try to dissolve the Union instead.
The other argument is a sort of corollary to this one. One proponent of this point of view was James Russell Lowell. He claimed, and I think rightly, that there was, in the seceding states, a lot of government property which was being siezed by force. Fort Sumter was a prime example. He also asked what would happen if a war broke out between the US and Britain and Michigan seceded and was annexed to Canada? His choice quote was that “Either we have no government at all, or else the very word implies the right, and therefore the duty, in the governing power, of protecting itself from destruction and its property from pillage … the doctrine of the right of secession … is simply mob law under a plausible name …” The argument further continues that if the states of the Confederacy can secede when they don’t get their way, what is to prevent some of them from later seceding from their Confederate States of America? For that matter, if a county, parish, or borough doesn’t like the government that is elected to their state, why can’t they secede and set up their own state. The idea that if you don’t like the results of the agreed upon political process you can withdraw can easily lead to what would now be called “Balkanization” and very few see any benefit for the people of the US in that.
These are not legal claims but mintry green provided the current, controlling Supreme Court word on the matter.
Thanks for the back story on that, David S. Very interesting.
Any takers on my 2nd paragraph? No, I have absolutely no cites. Like I said, grade school memory.
Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution:
“No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation”
Monica, yes, I know. But that was written well before Texas and California. Do all states have to abide to the specifics of that article in order to become part of the Union? Or, more specific question, was there something in all the legal stuffises when either CA or TX was allowed into the Union that would supercede said article?
I’m not trying to be obtuse or difficult, but I have labored under this possibly false assumption for years now, and I did not come up with on my own. Like I said, a teacher said this. And many of my Texas friends and family have also been led down this belief road.
I can’t see what the problem is. Any state can secede provided the Congress agrees to it, in other words, provided the majority of the other states agree. Which makes all the sense in the world to me because when a state joins it enters into a binding contract which would need the agreement of both parties to be disolved. The issue of “free country” is nonsense (or demagoguery). Any contract is a mutual exchange of rights and obligations. You are not free to unilaterally walk away from contracts (except in the case of marriage).
If we upheld the right of the people to declare indepedence, then I could declare my house to be a free and sovereign territory and I the president of that country. Nope. It does not work that way in any country in the world.
OK. Sounds reasonable to me. Unless someone else can say otherwise and prove it, I’ll just go on with this belief.
*The stars at night
Are clear and bright
Deep in the heart of Texas!*
About a decade ago, John Trochmann of Montana took the idea to its ultimate.
He filed court papers declaring himself a sovereign, thereby claiming he was exempt from such petty nuisances as paying property and social security taxes or any government regulations for that matter.
So what happened?
Sheesh!
Peace,
mangeorge
A state can secede, but the government can also refuse to recognize that secession. As Lincoln said, all people have the right to revolt, but all governments have the right to fight to preserve themselves.
In the same vein, you yourself can “secede”, and declare yourself sovreign. But you can be sure that as soon as you stop paying taxes, there will be some government agents showing up to “coerce” you back into the government.
Please, tell me you’re joking… grade school teacher give out false information every day. I know, I used to be one…
“When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. 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.”
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868).
Texas DOES have the right to cut itself into 5 states and have all those states be part of the union, though I don’t know if this would hold up in court, and more to the point, I doubt they would want to.
This issue came up a few months ago here.
Short answers:
-
as others have commented, a state cannot secede unilaterally, although in theory a constitutional amendment allowing a state to leave may be a possibility;
-
Texas does not have any special status - when it was annexed, the Congressional resolution indicated that it was admitted on the same basis as all the other states;
-
technically, any state could be subdivided: see Article IV, s. 3.
I don’t think that’s an accurate characterisation. The marriage continues to exist in law until dissolved by a court, after determining all the related issues triggered by the dissolution. Neither party to a marriage can unilaterally terminate the legal relationship.
You’re confusing the legal relationship with the performance. Any person in a business contract can similarly walk away from the contract, if they’re prepared to go to court to have the consequences worked out, damages, etc.
And now that I think about it, in certain cases one party to a commercial contract can unilaterally declare that it’s at an end, in the situation of a fundamental breach and recission (at least in the common law jurisdictions I’m familiar with). That option is not available to either spouse - only the court can legally dissolve the marriage relationship.