The People's Republic of Texas? Secession question

Factual Questions
1

The federal government fought to preserve ‘the union’ in the Civil War 140 years ago.

My question is, if a state wanted to secede now, would the federal government allow it?

What if, sometime in the future, federal taxes became so astronomical or congressional corruption and financial mismanagement so profound, that one of our larger states with a thriving economy (think Texas or California) decided it could do better on its own? Add to the scenario that polls showed 75 percent of that state’s citizens supported secession.

What would happen? Would it be a peaceful referendum ala Quebec? Or would we have Civil War II? Would the rest of the country have a say?

How would a state go about even considering it? Don’t think there are any Constitutional or other provisions out there.

“In much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” - Ecclesiastes 1:18

2

The Civil War ended this question for good. State cannot leave. Besides states have much less idenity now than they did 150 years ago

3

Until after the Civil War, secession was apparently viewed as legal. The subject had by that time come up three separate times, the first of which (1798) was drafted by some of the Founding Fathers themselves–Jefferson and Madison.

And, apparently the Southern secessions were viewed as legal at the time. The secessions themselves did not start the War, but the firing on loyal to the Union. The North couldn’t just let that happen.

And Court decisions after the Civil War have pretty much put the kibosh on that subject coming up again. The word “indissoluble” was used, which means “don’t even think of trying to leave.”

However, assuming that the Constitutional rules for “removal” from the Union are the same as admission, then it could conceivably be done–if Congress and the state itself OK it.

4

The issue about the admission and/or secession of states is not whether it is allowable (it is) but whether it can be done unilaterally. I’ve never heard anyone argue that a territory has the right to declare itself as part of the USA, but several states in 1861 were of the opinion that they had the right to withdraw without national approval. So if California for example voted to leave the United States and the United States voted to let California leave there would be no problem. However neither party can sever the relationship without the permission of the other.

5

Actually, I think that some Canadian gov’t officials have threatened to use force to keep Quebec in Canada. (Maybe the head of the Parliment? I don’t think it was the Prime Minister.) I don’t know how realistic this threat was, however, because my sense of the situation is that Canadians wouldn’t be willing to spill blood over this. If Quebec wants out, they’ll probably be allowed to leave. I’m curious as to what will become of the Maritime Provinces if this happens, because they would be so isolated. (Perhaps we could get some new states out of this. New Brunswick isn’t all that different from Maine, after all. :))

–It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats.

6

Aww, man! Does this mean that we can’t kick states out of the union without their permission, even if we hold a referendum in the other 49 and they all agree that the state in question has to go? I know a few states I wouldn’t shed any tears over if they were to leave…

An infinite number of rednecks in an infinite number of pickup trucks shooting an infinite number of shotguns at an infinite number of road signs will eventually produce all the world’s great works of literature in Braille.

7

All right, which ones? This could turn into a great debate, or maybe even a BBQ Pit posting!

8

If a state left now, it would be economically devastated. No state could survive without Federal government funds now. The state would also have to try to do something about the military installations, national parks, etc.

Even more mundane things, like sewer systems, are heavily dependent upon Federal funds.

9

BobT,

From a few year back I recall that there were two sorts of state: Debtor States and Creditor States. Debtor states took in more federal money than they contributed, Creditor States gave more then they took. If a Creditor State left, would they not be better off? I only mention this because, as I recall, California and Texas were in the Creditor category(along with a bunch more).

10

I don’t believe in the concept of “Federal funds.” They’re just the middleman. That money is coming out of your and my pocket just the same.

11

There is no provision in the Constitution for allowing a state to withdraw from the Union, with or without consent. Thus, states cannot legally withdraw. Contrary to the statement previously posted, the Federal Government in 1860-61 never considered the attempts by the southern states to withdraw valid, which is WHY there were still Federal troops in South Carolina, et al.

Now, from a practical standpoint, let’s assume that, for some unknown reason, both Hawaii and the rest of the states agree that Hawaii should be allowed to exit the Union. What could happen is that the Constitution could be amended to add a provision for withdrawl of a state with consent of all parties. The processes set forth in the Constitution would have to be followed for adding this provision. Then, the process added to the Constitution could be followed to allow Hawaii out.

Mind you, this is very hypothetical; the actual chance of any such thing happening is approximately the same as Satan experiencing freezing temps in his realm. :wink:

12

A state may no longer secede from the United States, but this country is based on a fairly simple premise:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another… a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

So, at least in Thomas Jefferson’s opinion, all you really have to do is state the reasons for splitting.

I myself seceded from humanity some time ago. Reason stated: I’m not going down with the rest of you fools!

13

Sofa, you’re quoting from Declaration of Independance. The DoI is not now, nor has it ever been a legal instrument of this nation. In fact, the DoI predates the Constitution by a good 11 years.

Strictly speaking, the DoI was a seditious document advocating violent revolt against a legitimate government. That we cherish it and consider it (erroneously) as the foundation of our nation is only because we won. Likewise, the states of the Confederacy choose to disregard the Constitution in their pursuit of secession. Had they won, their actions would now be viewed under a different set of standards.

14

If money were the only thing that mattered perhaps, it would make sense for California and Texas to leave, but then they would also be in big trouble when it came to things like acquiring water, electricity, and natural gas, much of which comes from other states.

I also don’t think that California and Texas could drop out of the union and still operate their welfare and health care systems without Federal money.

15

I disagree. As I postulated in another forum recently (though I don’t feel like hunting for it now), it seems to me that the US constitution actually follows the British model in some ways, in that parts can be left unwritten or included in other documents separate from the main Constitution. Case in point: the two-term limit for presidents. Up until FDR, all presidents followed Geo. Washington’s precedent of not running for a third term–a tacit understanding rather than a de jure provision of the constitution, but effective nonetheless. Only when FDR chose to break that precedent did the country see fit to formalize what until then had been an unwritten provision of our effective constitution.

As for the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I don’t think you can have the latter without the former. The purpose of government, as defined by the DoI, is to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizens. The Constitution determines how the government goes about doing this. If a dictator somehow rose to power while still adhering to the form of the Constituion, I think Americans would have a good case to overthrow his or her government, since such a leader would be violating the basic founding principle of the Republic as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

I agree, in the sense that the question posed by the Civil War–should the “United States” be referred to in the singular or the plural–would have had a different answer if the South had won. We’d be a different country now–or more likely, a different group of countries.

Exits, pursued by a bear

16

Not even close.

There is legislation before Parliament to bind the federal government’s hands, laying out the conditions by which the feds would negotiate with a province that voted for secession, but that’s about it.

Try reading CBC Newsworld or the Globe and Mail online after the House resumes in two weeks.

Dee da dee da dee dee do do / Dee ba ditty doh / Deedle dooby doo ba dee um bee ooby / Be doodle oodle doodle dee doh http://members.xoom.com/labradorian/

17

California gets a lot of it’s water from snow melt in winter from the Sierra Nevadas and from various Reservoirs (actually we depend on snowfall to fill the rivers). LA gets a lot of it’s water from Northern California (Owens Lake is one place). California also makes a lot of money from agriculture (in fact most of the Central Valley, and many of the smaller coastal valleys are devoted to Agriculture. I’ve never heard of California getting water from out of state. Then again where I live we pump it from wells.

California does get some Natural gas from states like Texas, but we have our own reserves. One company, PG&E has suppliers in Canada. In the north there is also steam power. California also has fishing industries, mining, and timber. And, we also have some oil reserves.

A lot of California is desert or semi-arid, but we aren’t devoid of resources!

18

Currently, many Alaskans are considering independence and, a few years back, one stupid guy approached the United Nations with such a proposal, and was politely ignored.

Aside from the wealth of oil, natural resources and such and the potential of them joining Canada, which would not be good for the States, if they were to attempt to leave the Union they would be met with Military force. Martial law would be emplaced, civil rights suspended, properties confiscated, ringleaders rounded up and prosecuted for treason and any organized or other attack against the troops would be dealt with violently.

America will NOT have another civil war. Should Alaska or Texas (funny how it is always the oil producing states who get rambunctious from time to time) attempt to pull out, no other nation in the world would dare openly lend them a hand because America would consider that an invasion and would respond as in war.

Somehow, I strongly suspect that the US did NOT get rid of all of those thermonuclear bombs.

19

n-t-grrrl:

Yeah, I think we oughtta give FL to Cuba (probably along with PR), and after the result has a civil war and then comes back crying to be admitted, we could decide whether to do such or not. We could do the same with TX going to Mexico. To get rid of LA, we could just run the Mississippi a little faster and flush that pile of silt into the Gulf.

dwtno:

Maybe the DoI isn’t a “legal instrument of this nation”, but it could surely have effect in court (if a court was to be considered in such a fray), since legal decisions in this country sometimes reach back as far as the Magna Carta for support.

And you say, in regard to the US Constitution:

Well, if we hadn’t won, what nation would’ve considered it its foundation under any circumstance, huh? :wink:

Doobieous:

Do you consider Colorado River water not out of state, just because, at the point we grab it, it’s sort of in this state? We used to use a lot of it; I think we still use fair amount.

CA.US considers itself the seventh largest economy in the world, as I hear it, so I don’t think, short of some military problem given it upon secession, it would have any problem at all, compared to other budding nations, in becoming independent. Of course, in no way would the US just say, “See ya!” But I don’t see any interest here in getting out of the Union. If CA did secede, I’d probably go to another state. I’m no fan of CA regimes.

NightGirl44:

Well, if AK makes too much noise about independence, we could just make a deal with Russia and switch it for Chechnya. They just might take us up on that. Maybe we could have Jesse Helms can set up the deal in the UN. :smiley:

Ray (Secession adjourned.)

20

BobT,

Texas and California both have plenty of natural resources. The common misconception of Texas as a barren, desert is wrong. California is a veritable cornucopia of farming wealth. As for water, Texas water comes from the sky, and from rivers. I’m not aware of any water pipelines from another state.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. The premise is that the states leave amicably. This would imply that no hinderance to trade would occur.