If say Hawaii no longer wanted to be part of the Union could it just say goodbye? If not, what moral grounds could the other states have for stopping it?
Obviously something similar happened in 1861. But if Fort Sumter had not been attacked, could the confederacy just have slowly disentangled itself from the North?
Succeed, you mean.
And, no. The Civil War answered that question fairly definitively.
Fort Sumter was only the beginning of the war; the North would have tried to bring back the South by military means even if there had been no attack. Fort Sumter allowed the North to claim they were attacked first – a good way to make the British hesistate from joining in – but the war would have occurred without it.
A succession today wouldn’t be stopped on moral grounds; it would be stopped on the legal grounds that you could not succeed. If Hawaii succeeded, the U.S. would probably send troops to bring it back in.
I was under the impression that Texas has the right to do so if it so chooses. They negotiated that on entry or something.
“Secede”, actually.
For your reading pleasure, the U.S. Supreme Court case State of Texas v. White (1868)–courtesy, really, of minty green, who has posted it before on some of our other threads on this particular topic.
To quote from the decision of the Supreme Court:
If you were a member state of the Soviet Union, then the U.S. could have encouraged you to secede. But secession is only okay if you belong to the bad guys. 
(<=== Joke!)
No, a state cannot secede. It’s hard enough for a city. For example, San Fernando and Hollywood want to secede from Los Angeles. Each city gives up the benefits of being part of L.A. (police and fire protection, for example) and must pay “alimony” of several million dollars per year. (I think I heard the sum of $21 million for one of the cities.)
Nothing succeeds like secession.
My wife, however, had an appointment with a dentist whose office was in the old Union Bank building, so when she fled the building in a state of high nervousness, she was … um…
Oh, well that’s entirely different. Every member Soviet Socialist Republic of the USSR had the right to secede. Stalin said so:
In practice, of course, they would have had you shot for even suggesting such a thing.
Thanks MEBuckner, so Hawaii could sucede, seuccede, suceed …oh dammit …separate if the other states permitted it. Would that be a simple ammendment of the constitution, and how many states would have to vote for it?
I dunno if it would take a constitutional amendment (in which case it would take the votes of two-thirds of each house of Congress, and then the ratifications of three-quarters of the state legislatures), or maybe just a simple act of Congress, passed by a majority of each house and then signed by (or at least not vetoed by) the President. Admitting a state to the union doesn’t require a constitutional amendment, just an act of Congress. But the question’s never really come up.
The reason I asked is that there were only 31 states at the time of the civil war . It may not have been to difficult to get a simple Act of Congress signed, especially as 12 states were all or partially on the confederacy side, with only 16 states needed. Of course there was the presidentcial veto but…
whoops miscounted - make that 34 states
It would not even take an amendment, just an act of Congress with the proviso that State X having chosen to leave the Union and the Federal government having no objections, it is hereby declared that … (with appropriate provisions).
Of course, the old Fort Sumter question arises – what about Pearl Harbor, Scofield Barracks, Wickam Field, and all the other Federal installations? Would the Republic of Hawaii take kindly to having one of eight major islands and half their capital island belong to the military establishment of a foreign nation? (And if not, what would they be able to do about it?)
On a slight tangent - there are] moral grounds. Unless 100% of the population of the seceeding state votes to secede and renounces their U.S. citizenship, you’ll have a minority of U.S. citizens who, for all effects and purposes, have been conquered by a foreign power. The American Government has an obligation to protect U.S. citizens, and defend their rights as Americans.
Slightly twisty logic, I know, but it makes some sense.
Well, according to these guys, we were never a part of the union to begin with. Or something. They’re nutcases, of course.
What you may be remembering is that whenTexas was admitted as a state, it reserved the right to divide itself into as many as five states, because it was so big. This never came up afterwards, however.
-Loopus
So is it fair to say that status as a state of the United States is something akin to a contractual obligation, such that unless both parties to a contract agree to a change to or dissolution of the contract, any conflicting “unilateral” action would be similar to a contractual violation?
The Constitution is silent on the power or procedure of secession.
Assuming that right exists, the above provision may support the notion that secession must be approved by the legislature of the seceeding state AND Congress.
I think Doghouse’s contract analogy is right on. The state and the Union exchange various rights and duties with each other, and one party shouldn’t be allowed to suddenly and unilaterally walk away.
There is a Supreme Court decision, based on the validity of a bond issue made by Texas and later repudiated by it (one or the other event having happened during the Late Unpleasantness of 1861-5), that said that states could not unilaterally secede, and that Texas’s act in doing so was null and void.
I’m basing my opinion on the theory that what the Constitution does not prohibit and Congress has the unquestioned power to do (accession, and admission to statehood), it also has the power to revoke the doing of (i.e., to permit the state to secede).
The point raised by Alessan – that Hawaiians are American citizens with rights that the U.S. or Hawaiian governments may not revoke – requires to be resolved.
Kind of like the loyal British subjects in the Revolutionary War?
That wouldn’t be State of Texas v. White, would it?
You mean I’m supposed to read what moderators say?!? :eek: