# Should U.S. states have the right to secede? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901 "2014-01-15T20:10:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/21 "2014-01-16T03:00:28Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > So the secession of the colonies was illegal under British law and legal under American law and the secession of the southern states was illegal under American law and legal under Confederate law. Success retroactively makes secession legal by creating a new body of law. Not really. As just a simple example when the president of the CSA was captured Davis wasn’t formally charged with anything. He wanted his day in court, and wanted the Federal Government to prove what he had done was illegal. I believe the Successionists were fundamentally wrong about a lot, but I believe their legal case was pretty solid. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/22 "2014-01-16T03:35:37Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Article V: …no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Right, but after expulsion, it’s no longer a state. Besides, if there’s a broad consensus in Congress and the states that some state should be expelled, the Constitution could just be amended. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/23 "2014-01-16T04:00:05Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Not really. As just a simple example when the president of the CSA was captured Davis wasn’t formally charged with anything. He wanted his day in court, and wanted the Federal Government to prove what he had done was illegal. I believe the Successionists were fundamentally wrong about a lot, but I believe their legal case was pretty solid. Not really. It was a political not a legal decision. They could have tried Davis and other Confederate leaders and they would have been found guilty. But what would it have accomplished? It’s not like they were going to try a second time. So the government decided not to prosecute them. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/24 "2014-01-16T05:12:06Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Not really. It was a political not a legal decision. They could have tried Davis and other Confederate leaders and they would have been found guilty. But what would it have accomplished? It’s not like they were going to try a second time. So the government decided not to prosecute them. Please fight my ignorance then, which law did he break? ---
**Author:** ![Weeping\_Wyvern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@Weeping\_Wyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weeping_Wyvern)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/25 "2014-01-16T06:58:18Z")
> [@Los\_Anconfused](#): > > There is debate whether members of the Constitutional Convention intended for states joining the United States to maintain the right to secede. > > For the purposes of this thread, this debate has two questions: > > **First,** was it intended at the time the Consitution was drafted that states would maintain the right to secede? I really don’t know. > [@Los\_Anconfused](#): > > **Second,** regardless of your view of the Framers’ intent, should the right for U.S. states to secede exist? Yes. If Delaware want to become a Most Serene Principality or New York wants to become a People’s Republic, I won’t hinder them. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If states can secede at whim, then shouldn’t counties be able to? And cities? Because country and city governments are creations of the state government, whereas state governments are not creations of the federal government. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/26 "2014-01-16T07:18:43Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > But according to that landslide reasoning… Aren’t you saying that the Colonies did wrong to secede from the British Empire? The colonies may have been part of the British Empire, but were never part of the United Kingdom. If they had been, they would have been represented in Parliament. The southern states, OTOH, were full partners in the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/27 "2014-01-16T07:44:19Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > The colonies may have been part of the British Empire, but were never part of the United Kingdom. If they had been, they would have been represented in Parliament. > > The southern states, OTOH, were full partners in the U.S. So, if the Colonies had been part of it, with representation and everything, you would consider Washington et al criminals and find their action objectionable? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/28 "2014-01-16T08:16:01Z")
More so, definitely. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/29 "2014-01-16T09:25:14Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > More so, definitely. So when the Continental Congress rejected the offer of virtual representation from the British Parliament, you are saying that they were in the wrong? That they should have accepted? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/30 "2014-01-16T09:34:48Z")
No, because virtual representation wasn’t the same thing as actual representation. Hence the term, “virtual representation”. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/31 "2014-01-16T09:52:59Z")
Legally speaking ? I have no idea how any of that crap works, don’t ask me. Morally speaking ? The right of people to dispose of themselves (i.e. self-determination) is one of the more fundamental ones. So yes, absolutely, provided a majority of people in a given State want out, they \*should \*be let out peacefully. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/32 "2014-01-16T09:56:30Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > No, because virtual representation wasn’t the same thing as actual representation. Hence the term, “virtual representation”. It was a step up in the right direction, though. And it was absolutely rejected. You think that was wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/33 "2014-01-16T09:57:18Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Legally speaking ? I have no idea how any of that crap works, don’t ask me. > > Morally speaking ? The right of people to dispose of themselves (i.e. self-determination) is one of the more fundamental ones. So yes, absolutely, provided a majority of people in a given State want out, they \*should \*be let out peacefully. What if the minority of people in a state what to split part of the state off? > [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > It was a step up in the right direction, though. And it was absolutely rejected. You think that was wrong? I disagree that it was a step in the right direction. So no. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/34 "2014-01-16T10:07:48Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > What if the minority of people in a state what to split part of the state off? Let 'em, long as they can muster a local majority. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/35 "2014-01-16T10:08:01Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I disagree that it was a step in the right direction. So no. Sure. Southern states also had conveniently traced lines on what was rightful and what wasn’t. So would any hypothetical seceding state. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/36 "2014-01-16T10:11:57Z")
Well, simple majority would be too slight a margin to be any stable, say an 70/30 split or better. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/37 "2014-01-16T10:21:24Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > Sure. Southern states also had conveniently traced lines on what was rightful and what wasn’t. So would any hypothetical seceding state. Well, sure, if you want to go full relativist then I guess everything’s cool. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/38 "2014-01-16T10:28:45Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Well, sure, if you want to go full relativist then I guess everything’s cool. I don’t. I’m accusing you of being one. The point I’m making is absolutist: either you consider that the US had a right to secede, and therefore any seceding nation has a right to follow the same path, or you don’t. You are the one with the moving goalposts here. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/39 "2014-01-16T10:38:48Z")
Basically, any nation has the right to secede as long as they win the conflict that results 😉 ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2014, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901/40 "2014-01-16T10:47:34Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Right, but after expulsion, it’s no longer a state. > [@Alessan](#): > > What if the minority of people in a state what to split part of the state off? This is one of the more crucial considerations to secession. What does a state become once it has seceded? The US would not be obligated to recognize the sovereignty of the seceded real estate unless (presumably) a previous arrangement had been reached prior to secession. Otherwise, a state that secedes just becomes some land with some people on it who claim to be citizens of Newhatever. If the process is not handled with due care, adjacent states might begin to summarily gobble up edges of Newhatever (perhaps with those residents’ consent or behest) while the larger nation looks on with indifference or tacit approval. An existing state is _ipso facto_ due fair courtesy and respect from the larger nation. A seceded state is just some vague entity, if even that, that used to be a state. Hence, to keep things from getting chaotic, the secession process must needs be rather arduous (though I am not convinced that a constitutional amendment would be required, since admission to the union did not require one). Given adequate difficulty in getting the hell out, one might imagine that the residents and local government would be inclined to at least attempt the less perilous approach and try to work out a way to remain in the union (like – gasp – a _compromise_). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-u-s-states-have-the-right-to-secede/678901.md?page=3)