Why can't any state secede if it wants to?

[ombre3]

What in the Constitution prevents a state from seceding? I don’t see anything there.

Why in hell didn’t the damned Yankees, while they were shoving amendments down throats (13th 14th and 15th) ever mandate an amendment specifically prohibiting any state, once it joined the union voluntarily, from voluntarily withdrawing froms said union?

Like the Hotel California —you can check out, but you can never leave.

They had their chance and blew it.

Secessions seems perfectly legal to me today.

Rebuttals?

[ombre3]

Sorry for the typos.

A shame you can’t edit on this forum.

[PigBoy]

@ombre3

Why in hell didn’t the damned Yankees, while they were shoving amendments down throats (13th 14th and 15th) ever mandate an amendment specifically prohibiting any state, once it joined the union voluntarily, from voluntarily withdrawing froms said union?

With regard to this part of your post, I asked this question (perhaps more delicately ;)) in GQ a while back and to my surprise received only a single reply. This was the answer from pravnik, who heroically saved my thread from sinking straight to the bottom:

@pravnik

It was the opinion of the U.S. government at that time that the Confederacy’s secession was absoultely not legal from it’s inception. An amendment prohibiting secession would have lended credibility to the idea that the secession was somehow legal prior to the passage of that amendment. From their point of view, there was no loophole that needed to be closed.

I suppose in addition to that, the war did set a little bit of a precedent.

I’ll leave the debating to the masters of GD. I’m more of a spectator.

[Saint_Cad]

We had a thread about this a few months ago. The legalistic reason is Texas v. White (1868) although I think that there are arguments that could be used to over turn this ruling - for example the Articles of Confederation outlawed secession but 9 states in effect seceeded from the USA under the AoC to form the USA under the Constitution. Texas v. White also stated that states in rebellion lost all voting rights (allowing the 14th Amendment to pass) but were still part of the Union which was simply a way for Chief Justice Chase to punish the South.

Right now, secession is de facto illegal and technically de jure illegal as well and it would take a state to successfully seceed (possibly a return to the Kingdom of Hawaii) to change this.

[ombre3]

The only thing that the War of Northern Aggression did was confirm that —

Might makes right.

I don’t think that would play today.

Suppose for example that a legal referendum was held in one of the states (Florida or California for example—a couple of oddities there anyway). And 90% of the populace of those states voted to secede.

What would stop them?

[Ravenman]

The Constitution, the law of the land, the three branches of government, force of arms, and likely national public opinion.

[Guinastasia]

“War of Northern Aggression?” Wow-people still call it that?

I wonder if the South would have been allowed to leave peacefully had they not started the war themselves, by firing on Ft. Sumter?

[John_Carter_of_Mars]

@ombre3

Might makes right.

Yep! Ol’ Abe Lincoln said there wasn’t gonna be none of that secedin’ stuff, and he had the army to back it up. Nothin’s changed since then either.

@Guinastasia

"War of Northern Aggression?" Wow-people still call it that?

Only when they want to, you know, rile up the Yankees.

I wonder if the South would have been allowed to leave peacefully had they not started the war themselves, by firing on Ft. Sumter?

Short answer, because it’s late, is no.

[Little_Nemo]

One principle involved was that the people in the seceding states were American citizens. They had a right to retain their citizenship and the United States had a right to defend their citizenship. Now you can argue that some of these people (maybe even a majority is some areas) voluntarily renounced their citizenship. But not everybody did. So the Confederacy was illegally depriving American citizens of their rights as citizens (basically the same principle as if Canada occupied Maine). The United States had the right to protect its citizens. And after the Confederates initiated military action, the United States responded with the same.

[Gfactor]

@ombre3

The only thing that the War of Northern Aggression did was confirm that —

Might makes right.

I don’t think that would play today.

Suppose for example that a legal referendum was held in one of the states (Florida or California for example—a couple of oddities there anyway). And 90% of the populace of those states voted to secede.

What would stop them?

What would stop them physically? Nothing but superior military force. http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/inus/inus_ijudgment/inus_ijudgment_19860627.pdf (pdf) (discussing principle of non-intervention).
If you are asking if they have a right under domestic or international law to do so, then the answer is no.

First, the Supreme Court held that states have no right to secede under domestic law.

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. (Emphasis added.)

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

The Court concluded that the secession was

absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

*Id. *

Second, the Supreme Court of Canada held that under international law component parts of sovereign states have no right to secede (unless the rebel state was a colony or an oppressed state). While international law does not prohibit secession, it is only because “an illegal act may eventually acquire legal status if, as a matter of empirical fact, it is recognized on the international plane.”

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1998/vol2/html/1998scr2_0217.html

What this means is that if a state seceded, got away with it, gained control of its territory, and gained recognition by some other countries, its secession would become legal under international law. It would remain illegal under US law, unles the rebel state could convince the Supreme Court to overrule Texas v. White.

But this result is made possible only by the very principle you disdain: “Might makes right.”

[msmith537]

@Guinastasia

“War of Northern Aggression?” Wow-people still call it that?

I guess “The War to Keep Our Negros” didn’t catch on.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Actually, Obmre’s thinking is quite along the lines of that of those who founded the CSA. There is an odd madness of those who are very legalistic in their thinking. (No offense intended, I am referring to Senator Davis and his ilk.)

It does not say I can’t and so I can.

A perfectly fine argument in the abstract. But we live in the real world. America, like all other countries has and unwritten component. The American Civil War established the reality that it is illegal for a state to remove itself from the Union.

Certainly this is not in the written law, but that does not make it any less real.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

If both parties agreed, could it be done?

Say Texas decided it wanted to secede from the union this morning. A referendum is held, the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of secession, the state legistature goes along, etc. There’s no question but that Texas wants out, and is prepared to do whatever it takes, peaceably, to do so.

And say, for some reason that it’s okay with the other 49 states and the Federal Gummint to cut Texas loose–imagine that we want Texas as a kind of immigration buffer zone or something, and feel it can best serve in that role as an independent nation.

Would Lincoln’s “Nope–no way–impossible–can’t be done” principle still apply?

[ombre3]

I probably shouldn’t have started this, since I won’t be able to post for the next few days.

But a couple things anyway----

1—Notice the year of Texas vs. White------1868--------right after “The War Between the States” (actually that one WAS the standard definition in Southern textbooks not so long ago)—when the damned Yankees could pretty much do anything they wanted to.

Anyway I see no Constitutional justification for Texas vs White------or certainly not an obvious one. An excellent case could be made opposing that ruling. And the Supreme Court does change its mind—and has done 180 degree turnabouts a few times.

2—And practically speaking, I do not think that public opinion today either here or abroad would allow the Feds to invade and subjugate a state that, by referendum seceded and by a very large majority did so.

On the 11 o’clock news tonight. -----

Tallahassee bombed, much collateral damage. 100’s of civilians killed. Fighting in Miami is door to door. Bridges to Jacksonville destroyed. March to Tampa moving along well------homes and crops destroyed for a 50 mile wide path to give the “insurgents” little to live on and destroy their will to fight. Protesters picketing outside the White House-------“Hey Hey US of A-----how many kids have you killed today?”

A few months, maybe a couple years of that, and the Feds would just give up and let Floriduh go. N’est-ce pas?

We aren’t the same nation we were in the 1860’s. We have little tolerance for bloodshed for any long term, and certainly we would have very little tolerance for that within or against “our own people” ----

-----And we don’t have a Lincoln (actually I think any other President besides Lincoln would have just let the South go—he could be a real stubborn bastard)

Not that I think any of that could really happen. Not that I really think any state would really want to secede and get a super large majority to approve that.

BUT----who knows about what the future may bring? We have a very large hispanic influx who don’t seem to want to assimilate all that well. Think of the separatist movement in Canada.

Why not legitimize the illegality of secession once and for all by having a constitutional amendment addressing the issue directly----so that in the future there can be no doubt about it, no legitimate or semi-legitimate argument for a state’s right to secede?

I am sure it would pass easily today.

[circus_electrique]

No state can secede because every U.S. citizen is a citizen of the United States. If all 500,000 Wyoming residents wish to secede from the U.S., they are denying 30 million residents of California the right to live work and trade freely in Wyoming. Those Wyoming residents have no right to deny the Californians a right without the Californians input. It’s a basic democratic principle.

Equally, should all 30 million Californians decide to secede, everyone in the other 49 states would have a big stretch of coastline where they once could live their lives but are no longer able to. One is a citizen of the States first, a resident of a state second. And if you want to secede, it doesn’t mean you are allowed to deny the citizens living in the other 49 states the right to the state in which you live. It’s that simple.

[Shagnasty]

@msmith537

I guess “The War to Keep Our Negros” didn’t catch on.

“The War to Keep Our Negros that You Bought, Transported, and Sold to Us” didn’t sound that great either.

Not all people call it “The War of Northern Aggression”. Some people call it “The War Between the States”. I have heard it called the Civil War but there is nothing civil about widespread torching, mass destruction of towns, and harm to civilians.

One reason that states can’t succeed is that they could use that as extortion to the rest of the country. Demanding money and whatever else would be fairly common if states could vote to pull out.

[DrDeth]

Well- because where does it end? If a State can secede, then half a state can split off. If half a state can split off- then a county can leave. Then a city. Then a neighborhood. Then- Ralph. “The soverign Nation of Ralph” just doesn’t cut it.

The point is- there is nothing which allows a state to leave. The states all joined voluntarily, and in many cases knew they couldn’t back out later when they asked to join.

Do note that a State can leave- assuming it has it’s own citizens behind it and the backing of (I think) 2/3rds of the other states *and *Congress.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@SaintCad

Texas v. White also stated that states in rebellion lost all voting rights (allowing the 14th Amendment to pass) but were still part of the Union which was simply a way for Chief Justice Chase to punish the South.

Voting rights and the majority necessary to ratify a constitutional amendment were not at issue in Texas v. White. Congress took the position that three-quarters of all the states, including the Southern states, were necessary to ratify all three Reconstruction amendments (the 13th, 14th, and 15th). Other than the trivial de jure rejection of secession after the fact, nothing in Texas v. White could be construed as “punishing the South”; in fact, the government of the State of Texas was the winning party in the suit.

[Angels_Flight]

I’m with you. Let the South rise again. Set them free and if they don’t come back to us we ein.

[Ravenman]

@ombre3

A few months, maybe a couple years of that, and the Feds would just give up and let Floriduh go.

The idea of 49 states just waiving their hands, saying, “Meh,” and letting a state go is just absurd. Just look what an s–tstorm gets kicked up around the nation when one state wants to allow its residents to have the priviledge of marrying a person of the same sex.

Why not legitimize the illegality of secession once and for all by having a constitutional amendment addressing the issue directly----so that in the future there can be no doubt about it, no legitimate or semi-legitimate argument for a state’s right to secede?

You know what this thread reminds me of? The movie “Air Bud.”

You all know the part I’m talking about – a dog walks onto the basketball court, or football field, or whatever, and the other team protests. The ref looks through the rulebook and says, “Well, there’s nothing in the rules that the players have to be HUMAN!!” and a terrible movie ensues.

Look, secession just is not an issue. The law is clear. There was a war fought about it. There is no dispute among the state and federal government. There’s only this idle chatter on an Internet message board. No states are seriously thinking about leaving the union. It’s a complete non-issue. The Constitution no more needs to be amended to prohibit secession than do dogs, cats, horses, and monkeys need to be prohibited from playing in the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, or NASCAR.