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.
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.
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]
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
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)
Baltic.
Pardon me while I repost something of mine from GD 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, 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:
(bolding mine)
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.
I stand corrected.
minty, thanks for returning this to a factual discussion.
All you folks with WAGS, opinions and rants can take it someplace else.
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.
- The Lousiana Purchase was purchased(!) by the US Government.
- 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.
- 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.
- The Pacific Northwest was disputed territory whose ownership was resolved by treaty made by the US Government.
- Alaska was purchased by the US Government.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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”.)
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. 
And, the U.S. never recognized the Baltics as part of the U.S.S.R.
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.
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.
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.
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?