# Intra-state rebellion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intra-state-rebellion/652735 "2013-03-12T17:59:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intra-state-rebellion/652735/1 "2013-03-12T17:59:13Z")
I got to wondering about something the other day- what would happen if part of one of the US states rebelled against the rest of the state? Let’s say for discussion’s sake, that S. Texas (defined as everything south of a line from Port Lavaca to Eagle Pass, again for discussion’s sake) decides to rebel from Austin and set themselves up as their own state or territory via armed force. They don’t have any desire to leave the US, but rather want to set their own laws and don’t like the hyper-Republican rule in Austin. So assuming that peaceful means fail, and this State of S. Texas arms itself up to defend itself, would the Governor of Texas be within his rights to call up the National Guard units in the remainder of the state and quell the rebellion and bring that part back into the fold by force? Or is suppression of rebellion like this more of a Federal issue that would require the use of the US Army? ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intra-state-rebellion/652735/2 "2013-03-12T18:15:11Z")
It’s happened. > **[Luther v. Borden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_v._Borden)** > > Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the political question doctrine in controversies arising under the Guarantee Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution (Art. IV, § 4). > Martin Luther was part of the Dorr Rebellion, an attempt to overthrow the charter government of Rhode Island that had stymied the efforts of those who wished to broaden the voting rights of state residents. The rebellion began as a p... ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intra-state-rebellion/652735/3 "2013-03-12T18:58:22Z")
> [@Constitution](#): > > ``` > New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. > > ``` So without permission from both the Feds and the old states legislature, the US can’t recognize the separation. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intra-state-rebellion/652735/4 "2013-03-12T20:49:57Z")
That’s kind of why I posed the question- the new “state” would be illegal, and would still be considered part of Texas, albeit in rebellion. So assuming that the way the Dorr Rebellion played out, it would be entirely legal for Rick Perry to call up the 36th Infantry division and the various AFNG wings and use them as a military force to reclaim the new “state” back into Texas, with all the attendant bloodshed and destruction? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2013, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intra-state-rebellion/652735/5 "2013-03-12T21:09:24Z")
> [@bump](#): > > That’s kind of why I posed the question- the new “state” would be illegal, and would still be considered part of Texas, albeit in rebellion. Except for West Virginia, but no one ever goes there anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Kepler1571](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/db5fbb/32.png) [@Kepler1571](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kepler1571)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intra-state-rebellion/652735/6 "2013-03-13T15:01:53Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Except for West Virginia, but no one ever goes there anyway. I don’t know about you, but my meth isn’t delivered. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intra-state-rebellion/652735/7 "2013-03-14T05:56:45Z")
> [@Kepler1571](#): > > I don’t know about you, but my meth isn’t delivered. See, in the old days, some entrepreneur would have recognized this niche and profitably served it. Nobody has any gumption any more.