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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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)?
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?
The University of Texas 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, 1845congressional annexation resolution states is this (emphasis mine):
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?