# States right to secede? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2001, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914 "2001-10-27T02:48:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/21 "2001-10-27T10:21:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Derleth \* > You have your forms of government mixed up there, **SenorBeef**. In a Republic, the central government is strong and the people (or, more commonly, regions) send representatives to be heard there. In a Democracy, the central government is either weak or nonexistent and the people govern by consensus. We, and most ‘Democracies,’ are actually a Republic. Democracies are rare, only existing in very limited regions, such as certain cantons in Switzerland. Democracy is also called ‘Pure Democracy,’ because countries like us insist on calling ourselves Democracies when we are, in fact, Republics. > > So it would make sense for a strong central government to want to preclude secession. It would make no sense for a Democracy to stop secession if a consensus could be reached favoring it. Derleth’s definition of republics and democracies is a pretty odd one, IMHO. A republic simply is a state that’s not a monarchy, and a democracy is a state in which the government depends on the people. It does NOt say anything about the position of the government of the plebiscital elements Darleth seems to demand in order to call the state a democracy; in fact, there is a common distinction between direct and representative democracies. ---
**Author:** ![johnson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@johnson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnson)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/22 "2001-10-27T13:36:46Z")
During a tour of the Confederate White House, the tour guide said that J. Davis was never put on trial for treason (or something like that–I don’t recall the exact details) because it was not established that states did **not** have the right to secede, and the Union was afraid of the precedent being set that secession is allowed. Made sense at the time–still does, if it’s true. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/23 "2001-10-27T14:20:37Z")
Secession is perfectly okay if the seceding State belongs to an Evil Union. Thus, the U.S. supported the right of the Balkan States to secede from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But secession is **only** the right of States that are under the yoke of non-Capitalist opression. Thus the states of the U.S., being the Mother of All Things Good and Free, are not allowed to secede. Okay, that’s the cynical view. IMHO from a “right is right and wrong is wrong” point of view, if the People of a state wish to secede from the Union, and there is a 2/3 majority (similar to the rules in Congress), then a state should have the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that prhobits a state from seceding. IIRC, Jefferson Davis _wanted_ to be tried for treason so that the issue would be settled in a civilized and legal manner; but the other side didn’t want to play. The U.S. Civil War settled the issue in a practical manner, but AFAIK the _legal_ issue was never settled. From an idealistic, the People are Right point of view, then yes; the states have a right to secede if the majority of the People agree. From a Constitutional point of view, there is nothing to prevent a state from seceding. From a practical point of view, “Might is Right” and there is no way it would be allowed. The only way it could practically happen is after a socio-economic collapse at least as bad as the one that happened to the USSR (or worse). I doubt _anyone_ would want to see that happen. There are too many benefits to staying together. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said, “We must all hang together, or we shall all hang seperately.” While we are not in danger of persecution from outside aggressors (governments, not terrorists), I think this still holds true. United, we are much stronger than we would be if we were a loose Confederation of Independent States. So to answer the OP: Yes, we have the _right_ to secede; but the People would have to defend that right in a most violent and bloody manner (which has been seen), and to what gain? We’re better off remaining united. [sub]But if California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska, and maybe Idaho, Nevada and Arizona DID secede peacefully, I would support them.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/24 "2001-10-27T15:14:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by fchick \* > As a curious aside, I believe my home state of Western Australia (imaginatively named) in fact voted to secede from the Commonwealth of Australia at some time in the distant past. Well, before I was born :P. Anyway, the federal government pretty much said “no”, and thats where it stopped. A curious business indeed, and a bit of a contrast to the US experience of secession attempts. On the eve of the referendum in WA of 8/4/1933, Senator Pearce cabled PM Lyons > [@](#): > > In view of feeling excited by the secession campaign I have arranged certain precautionary measures in respect of principal Commonwealth buildings. Have also arranged that any urgent and secret communications from the heads of Department here shall go through. And the referendum went to the secessionists by the handy margin of 138 653 to 70 706. After that, amazingly little happened. There was a somewhat heated adjournment debate in the Commonwealth Senate. The Western Australians tried to appeal to the Imperial Parliament, but failed. In the end, the C Grants Commission addressed the source of the Sandgroper’s gripes and the affair fizzled. In Australia at least, a referendum would have to succeed in a majority of states and by an overall majority for secession to occur. (Source Soutar _Acts of Parliament_) ---
**Author:** ![TheeGrumpy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/779978/32.png) [@TheeGrumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheeGrumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/25 "2001-10-27T16:46:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. \* > **…the U.S. supported the right of the Balkan States to secede from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics** Baltic. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/26 "2001-10-27T17:09:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Reeder \* > You have a cite for that? > > Show me where it says that say…just for example…that North Carolina can’t just up and leave the union. Where is something that says they can’t? Pardon me while I repost [something of mine from GD](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=75458=2) a few months back. I think this should pretty much settle the GQ: The legality of secession is quite well settled. To wit, it ain’t legal. [_State of Texas v. White_](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case=us=74=700), 74 U.S. 700 (1868). It’s fascinating reading, and I highly recommended it to anyone who cares about this subject. The discussion of secession begins at the bottom of page 719. (Findlaw denotes page breaks by bracketing the numbers in green type. The opinion itself starts about 1/3 of the way down the page.) So sayeth the Supreme Court: > [@](#): > > The Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union, as a State, on the 27th of December, 1845. By this act the new State, and the people of the new State, were invested with all the rights, and became subject to all the responsibilities and duties of the original States under the Constitution. > > From the date of admission, until 1861, the State was represented in the Congress of the United States by her senators and representatives, and her relations as a member of the Union remained unimpaired. In that year, acting upon the theory that the rights of a State under the Constitution might be renounced, and her obligations thrown off at pleasure, Texas undertook to sever the bond thus formed, and to break up her constitutional relations with the United States. . . . > [@](#): > > The position thus assumed could only be maintained by arms, and Texas accordingly took part, with the other Confederate States, in the war of the rebellion, which these events made inevitable. During the whole of that war there was no governor, or judge, or any other State officer in Texas, who recognized the National authority. Nor was any officer of the United States permitted to exercise any authority whatever under the National government within the limits of the State, except under the immediate protection of the National military forces. > > 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? . . . > [@](#): > > And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that the 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 indestructible Union, composed of indestructible 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.** (bolding mine) ---
**Author:** ![johnson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@johnson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/johnson)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/27 "2001-10-27T18:00:45Z")
Clearly, then, secession is legal through at least one means–“ **There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.** ” Consent of the States–an Act of Congress, perhaps, and certainly a constitutional convention could provide for secession. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/28 "2001-10-27T18:07:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Baltic. I stand corrected. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/29 "2001-10-27T18:13:16Z")
**minty** , thanks for returning this to a factual discussion. All you folks with WAGS, opinions and rants can take it someplace else. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/30 "2001-10-27T18:17:42Z")
I’ve seen this thread so many times and have got to point out some real basics. Let’s skip the original 13 and looks at how the US government acquired most of the other territories. 1. The Lousiana Purchase was _purchased_(!) by the _US Government_. 2. Florida was acquired from Spain by the _US Government_ by treaty. As was “West Florida” aka southern stubs of MS and AL. Most of the rest of the Southeast was disputed territory whose ownership was resolved by treatys made by the _US Government_. 3. Most of the Southwest was acquired from Mexico by the _US Government_ after the Mexican war (conquered would be a more direct term.) A little piece was added latter when the _US Government_ did the Gadsen Purchase. 4. The Pacific Northwest was disputed territory whose ownership was resolved by treaty made by the _US Government_. 5. Alaska was purchased by the _US Government_. 6. Oh, the “Old Northwest Territory”, while claimed by various of the original 13, it was effectively acquired by force by an army of the US Continental Congress and officially recognized via the treaty of Paris ending the revolution made by the then _US Government_. So note that except for Hawaii and Texas, all western states were obtained by $ or treaty by the _US Government_ as well as a good chunk east of the Mississippi. These lands were initially territories and then asked to become states. If they no longer want to become states they would become territories of the US again. You would have to ask, “Under what circumstances can a _territory_ of the US stop being a _territory_?” For any of the current 50 that would likely mean pointless human being destroying war. Texas, Hawaii (esp. if the “natives” rebel) the original 13 states and Vermont might have “legel secession” arguments, but Florida, Nebraska and Arizona don’t. We bought it, it’s ours. remember, we are talking about _land_ and not people. ---
**Author:** ![peepthis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9d8465/32.png) [@peepthis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peepthis)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/31 "2001-10-27T18:30:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Schnitte \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Derleth \* > > You have your forms of government mixed up there, **SenorBeef**. In a Republic, the central government is strong and the people (or, more commonly, regions) send representatives to be heard there. In a Democracy, the central government is either weak or nonexistent and the people govern by consensus. We, and most ‘Democracies,’ are actually a Republic. Democracies are rare, only existing in very limited regions, such as certain cantons in Switzerland. Democracy is also called ‘Pure Democracy,’ because countries like us insist on calling ourselves Democracies when we are, in fact, Republics. > > > > So it would make sense for a strong central government to want to preclude secession. It would make no sense for a Democracy to stop secession if a consensus could be reached favoring it. > > Derleth’s definition of republics and democracies is a pretty odd one, IMHO. A republic simply is a state that’s not a monarchy, and a democracy is a state in which the government depends on the people.\*\* Huh? I think maybe **Schnitte** has been playing too much Civilization;). A republic, in the context of this discussion, is a government in which the electorate ultimately maintains power, but charges their representatives with exercising that power (useful, especially since it means We The People don’t have to make an informed decision on every government decision). A pure democracy, rarely exemplified outside small New England towns, requires popular voting on all matters. However, in today’s world even political scientists muddle the distinction, rendering most liberal (in the classical sense, not the political party sense) republics as “democracies.” For anyone interested in why these distinctions matter, and what else these systems entail, I highly recommend _The Federalist Papers_ or (for those not wanting to wade through 18th century writing) any of **Robert Dahl’s** immensely readable and concise books on democracy. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/32 "2001-10-27T18:39:59Z")
I can assure you I did only acquire negligible parts of my political views from Civilization 😉 Well from what I understand a republic actually is nothing more than a state that’s not a monarchy (Iraq, for example, is a republic, and so was Germany during the Nazi era). There are and were tons of states where the people does not hold power and are yet republics (take ancient Rome for example). What you define as a republic is -at least in German Sozialkunde classes 😉 - called a representative democracy. The “true” democracies you refer to are usually called direct or plebiscitarian democracies. They are very rare, with even Switzerland doing most of the work in Parliament and not via plebiscites, but Switzerland AFAIK is the only example in modern world for a truly well-functioning not-too-small direct democracy. Remember Britain is a democracy, yet not a republic but a monarchy (a parliamentary one). Iraq is the counterexample for a non-democratic republic. It’s not necessary for monarchies, btw, to have a hereditary Head of State. Malaysia, for example, elects its King for a limited span of time and yet is defined (and defines itself) as a monarchy. ---
**Author:** ![Houlihan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Houlihan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Houlihan)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/33 "2001-10-27T19:53:49Z")
Minty, I don’t think that Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700 settles the matter. My reading suggests that the Tenth Amendment was not invoked by the State of Texas. Instead, a group of individuals, NOT the duly elected Texas government, began the secession action. To wit: “January, 1861, a call for a convention of the people of the State was issued, signed by sixty-one individuals. The call was without authority and revolutionary. Under it delegates were elected from some sections of the State, whilst in others no vote was taken.” Id. at 704. Further, this rebel government “also passed a resolution requiring the officers of the State government to take an oath to support the provisional government of the Confederate States, and providing, that if ‘any officer refused to take such oath, in the manner and within the time prescribed, his office should be deemed vacant, and the same filled as though he were dead.’” Id. Thus, the body that declared secession was not the lawful government of Texas, but rather a rebel insurgency that acted contrary to the lawful government and Constitution of Texas. Again, the Tenth Amendment provides that: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Meaning that: Powers which have been granted to the Federal government are reserved to the Federal government; Powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the State; except Those powers not claimed by the State, which are reserved to the people. In Texas v. White, the people of Texas skipped a step. Instead of lawfully passing a secession action through its state government and under its state constitution, the people overthrew the state government. I submit that the analysis made in Texas v. White would not apply to a situtation where a state government, probably by referendum, lawfully resolved for secession. In that instance, IMHO, secession would be legal. This is not to say that U.S. would be without a remedy. FTG made an excellent argument that states existing upon territories purchased or otherwise acquired by the Federal Government would remain under the sovereignty of the United States. While I see the merit of the argument, it is essentially an ownership argument, and I think it fails as to every parcel of property within the imaginary new nation except those still owned, to this day, by the Federal Government. But no matter how that issue is resolved, the U.S. Government may very well declare war on this new nation within its borders, roll the tanks, and reset the state government. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/34 "2001-10-27T20:40:01Z")
The Union position during the civil war was this: that if a state could secede any time it wanted to, for any reason, democracy would be impossible. No democracy could survive if the people on the losing side of a vote refused to accept the results. People will accept _some_ loss of what they want if (a) they’re confident that the system is ultimately fair, (b) that overall they’ll get what they want more often than not, and © the results of disunion would be worse than the issue at hand. The American Civil War started when several southern states refused to accept the Republican party victory in the presidential election, and more states seceeded at the “outrage” of the national government resorting to force to regain it’s authority. The southern states claimed that the Republican agenda amounted to a radical revolutionary coup against their rights (concerning slavery). The north denied that their claim was legitimate. The war resulted. It’s now pretty much accepted that a state can’t unilaterally renounce the federal authority. BTW: Can anyone give some background on the Swiss civil war, and how that was resolved? ---
**Author:** ![DPWhite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d26b3c/32.png) [@DPWhite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPWhite)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/35 "2001-10-27T21:11:47Z")
I beg to disagree on the meaning of the tangential debate on democracy vs. republic. Democracy itself translates from Greek roughly as “mob rule”. Athens practiced “democracy” much to the annoyance of the political thinkers of the day who didn’t like it. But only males over the age of 18 (amounting to about 6,000 people depending on time period) actually had the right to vote. Women, children, slaves, etc. did not vote. At the height of the Athenian empire only a minority had a right to vote. I’m not sure that even a majority of those did. The term democracy, as it is used today, is not an insult, but rather describes the principles of the Enlightenment on which our country was founded, in that the general principle is one person gets one vote and representation in such a proportion. The United States Senate makes the Federal government terribly undemocratic under certain circumstances. But all of the state legislatures are required to be based on precise proportional representation. In modern parlance, a representative democracy is a republic. (Ignoring mockeries in the form of communist “people’s republics”.) ---
**Author:** ![whatmove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecc23a/32.png) [@whatmove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatmove)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2001, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/36 "2001-10-27T22:01:33Z")
I don’t know the technicalities of it all but I know that once it’s all figured out, Vermont and Quebec have a good chance of splitting off together to form a socialist utopia. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/37 "2001-10-28T02:07:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. \* > \*\* Thus, the U.S. supported the right of the Balkan States to secede from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. \*\* And, the U.S. never recognized the Baltics as part of the U.S.S.R. ---
**Author:** ![Erasticity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3e96dc/32.png) [@Erasticity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erasticity)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/38 "2001-10-28T02:43:15Z")
Regarding the Civil War slant (since thats the only examle we’ve got to work with in successful seceding) I truly don’t believe that the North (i.e. Federal Gov.) would have cared all that much if, say Rhode Island had decided to secede as opposed to Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, … due to the fact that the issues weren’t actually slavery and who won the election. The south felt under represented by the Fed Gov. as they had all the natural resources but no Industrial capacity to speak of. They felt that they were parting with their resources for a pitance and paying exorbitant prices for the finished product. (a very cynical and brief underview…) The slavery issue was the selling point to the Union much as the disagreement on the election was a convenient excuse for the Confederacy. ---
**Author:** ![peepthis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9d8465/32.png) [@peepthis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peepthis)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/39 "2001-10-28T02:57:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DPWhite \* > \*\*But only males over the age of 18 (amounting to about 6,000 people depending on time period) actually had the right to vote. Women, children, slaves, etc. did not vote. At the height of the Athenian empire only a minority had a right to vote. I’m not sure that even a majority of those did. > > The term democracy, as it is used today, is not an insult, but rather describes the principles of the Enlightenment on which our country was founded, in that the general principle is one person gets one vote and representation in such a proportion. The United States Senate makes the Federal government terribly undemocratic under certain circumstances. But all of the state legislatures are required to be based on precise proportional representation. > \*\* I’m inclined to think that women in the U.S. prior to 1920 and many minorities prior to 1968 (slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person, according to the original Constitution), might disagree about the full magnanimity of our founding fathers. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Schnitte \* > **Remember Britain is a democracy, yet not a republic but a monarchy (a parliamentary one). Iraq is the counterexample for a non-democratic republic** In my experience Britain is indeed considered a democracy, though one with a constitutional monarchy. In fact, the British system is the source for the term “Westminster Model” of democracy – meaning, in short, majority rules. It’s the same form of democracy used in Canada and Australia, and stands in contrast to the U.S. system (which is considered an outlier in democratic theory) and consociational democracy (a coalition-based democracy best used in multi-ethnic countries, for example in Switzerland and Suriname). They are considered democracies, though (as you correctly point out) not in the “direct” sense. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2001, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914/40 "2001-10-28T03:38:44Z")
I just used the terms ‘Democracy’ and ‘Republic’ in their modern senses, the way most people understand them. True, Republic may _derive_ from _Res Publica_, but a Republic in the modern sense is a representative form of government with a strong central authority. Democracy implies a direct vote. The Democratic Tradition is a vote of all people on any issue that affects all people, with either a simple or a two-thirds majority needed to carry a vote. The actual percentages depend on the laws (or bylaws) of the country or organization. And I would class Iraq as a Monarchy, not a Republic. After all, just how much do we and Iraq have in common, politically? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-right-to-secede/89914.md?page=3)