### Author:  [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2002, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/21 "2002-12-01T22:16:08Z")
California was a sovereign nation in the minds of a few people. There was the Bear Flag Republic, but it was not recognized by any other country, including the U.S. It definitely did not have the legitimacy of the Republic of Texas, which mad ministers to other countries and fun stuff like that.
California did become a state without being a territory first, but that was more a result of political wrangling over the Compromise of 1850. There was considerable debate over the status of California as a free or slave state and how it would affect other territories acquired during the Mexican-American War.
So, you can go to Red Bluff, California and visit the home of the “President of California” William B. Ide, he was not on the same level as Sam Houston.
The flag does say " Calfiornia Republic" which is sort of cool, but the complete sovereignity of California never really existed.
---
### Author:  [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2002, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/22 "2002-12-01T23:11:33Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by NoClueBoy \*
> **That 140 year old legal descision reads like the King James Bible; it’s hard to pick up on exactly what it’s saying. Is it talking about someone who was denied rights during The War of Northern Aggression? Or about Texas citizens wanting to be guaranteed of civil rights after the war? What was the beef that was brought before the Court to require this descision?**
The beef concerned federal government bonds that the state of Texas sold to a private party during the Civil War. After the war, the “presidential Reconstruction” government of Texas sued to get the bonds back. The issue came before the Supreme Court under original jurisdiction, because it involved a state as plaintiff. The defendants said, “No, that can’t be–Texas isn’t a state, because it seceded and hasn’t yet been readmitted to representation in Congress.” The Court said “No, secession was never valid”; for the reasons cited above.
Having determined that Texas was always a state, however, the Court then proceeded to disavow the actions of its pro-Confederate Legislature during the War. The bond sale was invalidated, and the bonds were returned to the Reconstruction government of Texas.
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*When I was mearly a wee young Texan in elementary school, we were taught that only Texas and California could legally secede because they were the only two soveriegn nations brought into the Union. They still needed a 2/3rds majority of States (popular vote? or congress?) to do so.
>
> Clarification please. \*\*
This is horse twaddle, claptrap, sheerest nonsense. All 50 states are on an equal constitutional footing in every respect whatsoever.
The germ of uniqueness in the admission of Texas was the _statutory_ provision that left its boundaries indeterminate and provided that portions of its territory might later be admitted (with the consent of Texas and of Congress) as additional states. There was really nothing unique about this, however–Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution applies the same language to every state.
---
### Author:  [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2002, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/23 "2002-12-01T23:24:25Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Northern Piper \*
> \*\*I don’t think that’s an accurate characterisation. The marriage continues to exist in law until dissolved by a court, after determining all the related issues triggered by the dissolution. Neither party to a marriage can unilaterally terminate the legal relationship.
>
> You’re confusing the legal relationship with the performance. Any person in a business contract can similarly walk away from the contract, if they’re prepared to go to court to have the consequences worked out, damages, etc.
>
> And now that I think about it, in certain cases one party to a commercial contract can unilaterally declare that it’s at an end, in the situation of a fundamental breach and recission (at least in the common law jurisdictions I’m familiar with). That option is not available to either spouse - only the court can legally dissolve the marriage relationship. \*\*
I was being somewhat facetious but I was not confusing anything. To say you can unilaterally walk away from a contract so long as you face the consequences in court is like saying it is legal to kill a man so long as you are willing to face the consequences. The law does not say you should _not_ kill a man, it only says what will happen to you if you do.
If you have a valid contract and go to court attempting to have it anulled for no valid reason, the court will not rule in your favor and will rule you are obligated to perform or face the consequences.
On the other hand, when you get married you mutually make certain promises and representations but later you can go to court and unilaterally request the contract be anulled even if the other party performed fully and is opposed to the dissolution. It is called no-fault-divorce.
The basis for the declaration of independence was that the King of England had broken the law by his actions and therefore the colonies were freed of their allegiance to him.
If the USA were to treat some state in a manner contary to the Constitution, then that state would have a pretty good case for seceding even if the USA opposed the secession, but as long as the USA abides by the law of the land, then the several states have to abide by their end of the bargain. No no-fault divorce here I’m afraid.
---
### Author:  [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2002, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/24 "2002-12-02T00:48:18Z")
If I ever see any of those old teachers of mine, I’m gonna ask what else they made up to pass the time while “teaching” us.
At least our science teachers taught us the latest “Steady State” picture of cosmology. \
---
### Author:  [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2002, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/25 "2002-12-02T17:21:57Z")
Re Texas subdividing:
The Constitution prohibits Congress from dividing any state _without its consent_. So presumably it could make Downstate and Upstate New York or Illinois into separate states, provided that the State Legislature approved of doing so. (Precedent indicates that a state that has seceded is considered as giving “constructive consent” to the loyal part being divided off as a new state.)
But it takes an act of Congress to create a new state, whether from territory not incorporated into a state or from existing states or pieces of them.
The situation with Texas is that in admitting Texas, Congress has already given its consent to Texas, at a time of its own choosing, turning into West Texas, East Texas, North Texas, South Texas, and Nueces (or whatever they decide to call 'em). All it takes for Texas to do so is a decision of the Texas State Legislature.
Likewise, any state, along with anything else, may indeed secede from the Union – **if the Union gives its consent**.
Perhaps the classic example of this was the territory in the southwest Pacific taken from Spain in 1898 and governed as a territory of the U.S., created a Commonwealth in 1934 or so, and given independence in 1946. This was clearly an organized political body under U.S. law seceding to form a separate country – with the consent of the U.S. government.
* * *
Added after preview:
> [@](#):
>
> The germ of uniqueness in the admission of Texas was the statutory provision that left its boundaries indeterminate and provided that portions of its territory might later be admitted (with the consent of Texas and of Congress) as additional states.
I was under the impression that the statute admitting Texas gave Congressional approval to the possible division of Texas into not more than five states, hence my statement above. Can you link to something authoritative that would validate your reading (or mine)?
---
### Author:  [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2002, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/26 "2002-12-02T17:24:35Z")
Here’s a fundamental question: what’s the point of establishing a democratic republic if the people who are supposedly part of it can up and leave whenever elections don’t go their way?
The essence of a democratic republic is majority rule, within strictly defined boundaries. How do you expect a democratic system to work if nobody is bound to remain within the system when they dislike the results?
---
### Author:  [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2002, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/27 "2002-12-02T18:01:31Z")
[The University of Texas](http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/DD/mqd1.html) on historical attempts to subdivide the state. Nevertheless, the notion that Texas can unilaterally turn itself into five states is pure baloney. What the March 1, 1845[congressional annexation resolution](http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/two/texannex.htm) states is this (emphasis mine):
> [@](#):
>
> New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, **the consent of said State** formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission **under the provisions of the federal constitution**.
So Texas must _consent_ to subdivision, just like any other state must consent under Article V, and the subdivided territory must be admitted _in accordance with the Constitution_–which does not permit unilateral subdivision as a means of adding new states to the union. So I’m sorry, **Poly** , but Congress certainly has not given its consent for Texas to subdivide itself of its own accord.
Anyone wanna bring up the old canard about how Texas gets to fly its flag higher than the Stars and Stripes? 😛
---
### Author:  [@andymurph64](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andymurph64)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2002, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/28 "2002-12-02T21:03:02Z")
Now, why only one direction here? Can the other 49 states expel the one, like South Dakota, without South Dakota’s permission?
😛
---
### Author:  [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2002, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/29 "2002-12-02T21:34:47Z")
Just like the old canard that the USA doesn’t really have 50 STATES- it has 40something and the rest are “commonwealths”. Yeah sure- a State can call itself a “commonwealth” or a “republic” or anything it wants to- but the US Constitution recognizes only States, and when they joined the Union that’s what they agreed to.
Once you agree to become a State, that’s pretty much final- which is one of the reasons why Puerto Rico has not opted for Statehood- they could “secede” and become independant.
---
### Author:  [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)
#### Post date: [December 2, 2002, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/30 "2002-12-02T21:48:56Z")
Thanks, **Minty**. It would seem that I bought into a Lone Star Legend (the cactus-and-cayuse cousin of the urban variety).
---
### Author:  [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2002, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/31 "2002-12-03T05:13:18Z")
You’d be surprised how many of those legends are true, **Poly**. Just not this one. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2002, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/32 "2002-12-03T06:09:59Z")
> [@](#):
>
> 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.** _emphasis mine_
_Ding-ding-ding!_ He’s got it! Admitted straight from the Yankee’s mouth, so to speak 😉 Clearly this decision was nothing more than a cover, necessary to clothe the War Between the States in legitimacy. Surely such a self-interested decision would not necessarily enjoy the benefit of _stare decesis_?
BTW, on this subdividing thing…what about border alterations? For instance, I’d personally enjoy kicking Kansas City and St. Louis out of the state of Missouri. It’s been apparent for a long time now that those people do not share the interests of the rest of the state. For instance, they wanted to use our money to fund racial desegregation that is only a problem in those cities…and we didn’t want them to use our money, they could have funded it with their own property taxes. And since those cities voted heavily in favor of the recent proposed tax on tobacco (which lost thanks to rural voters), I think it expedient to boot those teetotaling do-gooders before they wreak more havoc 😉 Could Illinois “adopt” STL, and Kansas absorb the Missouri half of KC?
---
### Author:  [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2002, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/33 "2002-12-03T06:21:58Z")
So then St. Louis, MO would become West East St. Louis, IL?
---
### Author:  [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2002, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/34 "2002-12-03T06:25:55Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by BobT \*
> \*\*So then St. Louis, MO would become West East St. Louis, IL? \*\*
LOL, admittedly that would be confusing. But I know from experience that people from the East Coast would be thankful to find Kansas City actually in Kansas.
---
### Author:  [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2002, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/35 "2002-12-03T20:14:32Z")
It might be of interest to consider _why_ California might want to secede. We’ve got rampant population growth, exurban sprawl, not enough schools, and barely enough water. For those reasons the state–at least the Southern half–is famously the “place that no other state wants to be like”.
Our population growth is almost entirely driven by immigration, and our immigration policy is controlled by a Federal government 3000 miles away.
---
### Author:  [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2002, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/36 "2002-12-03T20:41:03Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by RexDart \*
> **_Ding-ding-ding!_ He’s got it! Admitted straight from the Yankee’s mouth, so to speak 😉 Clearly this decision was nothing more than a cover, necessary to clothe the War Between the States in legitimacy. Surely such a self-interested decision would not necessarily enjoy the benefit of _stare decesis_?**
That’s certainly my take on it. A supreme court decision to make sure the War couldn’t happen again my making it absolutely clear where the states stood with regards to seccession.
But that doesn’t really change the legitimacy of the ruling, right? A SCOTUS ruling with an obvious political purpose is still a SCOTUS ruling.
---
### Author:  [@FallenAngel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FallenAngel)
#### Post date: [December 3, 2002, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/37 "2002-12-03T20:43:49Z")
In the first place, I would happily lobby my state legislators to vote enabling California to secede.
In the second place, for those interested in a little (not very) light reading on the other side of the Consitutional argument in this and pretty much all other areas, check out [http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html](http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html)
Lysander was the crotchety great-grandpappy of both capital and lower case libertarians everywhere, and his essays are still thought provoking no matter if you’re a statist or an anarhcist or somewhere in between.
---
### Author:  [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)
#### Post date: [December 4, 2002, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698/38 "2002-12-04T03:13:57Z")
Secede, **FallenAngel** , not recede. You Phoenicians will never give up on that “fall in the ocean” thing, will ya?
No, you don’t get to be a port city, never, and that’s _final_. 😉
Peace,
mangeorge
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-cant-we-secede-from-the-union/139698.md?page=1)