Why the US opposition to the idea of secession?

[Saint_Cad]

@Acsenray

Those regions are fundamentally different from U.S. states. They are actually ethnic groups or nations. There are zero ethnic groups or nations seeking to secede from the United States. To the extent that there are any groups seeking secession, they are groups of individual radical conservatives with no nationality to speak of other than “American” and with no correlation to state boundaries.

So what if Hawaiians decide they want their kingdom back would you favor their secession?

[Acsenray]

@tomndebb

I suspect that most of us are not nearly as enraged as we are amused by the secessionists, but those who are the most vocal–prompted by the points I have mentioned–tend to be angry rather than amused.

To the extent that there might be some anger, one of the causes could be that the kinds of reactionaries we’re talking about are accustomed to labeling everyone else traitors or un-American as it suits them, but when they lose an election or an issue, then they start talking secession.

[Acsenray]

@Saint_Cad

So what if Hawaiians decide they want their kingdom back would you favor their secession?

I don’t know whether I would favor it, but I would consider the sentiment to have some valid basis.

[DrDeth]

@Saint_Cad

So what if Hawaiians decide they want their kingdom back would you favor their secession?

Are the only ones who get to vote the members of the Hawaiian royalty?:rolleyes:

[rogerbox]

@elbows

Does anyone truly believe that the right and the left will ever find compromise or middle ground?

Yes. Old angry white men who believe Fox News garbage are dying out faster than they are being replaced. Within my lifetime it is inevitable that the discussions will swing left back into sanity.

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

So, basically, it would be a war. That seems like a good argument against any attempts at secession.

Not in principle.

So what? You seem set upon wanting to allow them to leave- disregarding all the other issues, are you suggesting they would demand their money back from the federal government? I don’t think that would go over well.

I thought that was what you were getting at with your suggestion that they would ignore their share of the national debt. That cuts both ways. If a state has been paying in more than it gets back, then that is going to affect what their share of the national debt is.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Human_Action

Right, a much more stringent process than a majority vote.

Secession would be a horrible mess no matter how it was accomplished, if it could be accomplished at all.

The question, AFAICT, is “would it be possible in theory?”

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

I thought that was what you were getting at with your suggestion that they would ignore their share of the national debt. That cuts both ways. If a state has been paying in more than it gets back, then that is going to affect what their share of the national debt is.

For one thing, I don’t believe the states being discussed pay more than they get back- for another, I don’t think the seceding state would be in position to dictate terms to the rest of the US.

[Human_Action]

@Shodan

Secession would be a horrible mess no matter how it was accomplished, if it could be accomplished at all.

The question, AFAICT, is “would it be possible in theory?”

Regards,
Shodan

Yes, I would say that it is. As noted, a Constitutional amendment would seemingly be required, since there’s no secession procedure in the Constitution at present.

The OP was asking why Americans reacted to the idea with hostility, I was trying to address that question with my remarks, and illustrate the perceived pitfalls of secession.

@iiandyiiii

For one thing, I don’t believe the states being discussed pay more than they get back…

Texas does, for one.

[John_Mace]

@Acsenray

I really have no idea what position you are arguing for.

I think there should be a process to allow secession. I don’t know all the details, but it would have to involve a super-majority.

1. The right of nations to seek self-determination, as brought up in this thread, is a right of “nations,” which is an explicitly ethnic term. A group of people who happen to sign on to a particular political platform is not a nation. A nation is a group of people with a common cultural background, history, and ancestry (that is, ethnicity), and (probably) some history – even if distant – of some kind of independent statehood.

Well, that’s just a human construct. There is nothing objectively true about it, and one could easily declare that “like minded people” should be able to form a nation. Besides, when is a new country ever formed when there isn’t some minority that either wants out or wants to stay with the original country.

2. One of the ideas this country was founded on is democracy. Allowing any partisan faction to simply opt out of a democratic state in order to avoid the consequences of democratic decision-making would fundamentally undermine democracy.

There is no reason that secession can’t also be part of the democratic process. It would be dangerous, I think, to allow it happen with a simple majority vote.

3. Secession requires not only a body of people who want to secede, but also some kind of defined territory that such people lay a claim to. Anyone who thinks that the political disagreements in the United States are aligned with state borders fundamentally misunderstands the political situation in the United States.

Political disagreements are never aligned perfectly with borders.

4. Economically and politically, allowing secession would be a disaster to everyone.

Why? As long as the process was agree to, say as a Constitutional Amendment, then I don’t see why it needs to be a “disaster to everyone”.

5. As has been stated before, no “state” actually wants to secede.

Right. But one might sometime in the future.

[Human_Action]

@John_Mace

I think there should be a process to allow secession. I don’t know all the details, but it would have to involve a super-majority.

Care to take a stab at a process, just as a thought experiment? I think you’d certainly have to have an amendment to add the process to the Constitution, whatever process you’d end up selecting. I’d say the concerns you’d have to confront and ameliorate are, in some order:

1. Provision to ensure secession is the will of some sufficient portion of the state or territory (might you consider sub-state level secession, like, say, East Texas or Central Kentucky?)

2. Provision to accomodate those who wish to remain U.S. citizens in some fashion, such as buying their fixed property at fair market value and providing for transportation to another state.

3. Provision to determine the fate of federal property, both fixed (interstates) and otherwise (military equipment), as well as federal debts and obligations.

4. For landlocked areas in particular, provision for border crossings and customs.

[rogerbox]

So should Texas be able to seceed if the Federal Gov’t won’t allow them to have slavery again, and the super-majority of Texas wants to own slaves?

[WillFarnaby]

Because when the people of the states choose candidates on the state level they pick evil people. But when these same voters choose candidates on the national level they choose benevolent stewards of liberty and morality.

[John_Mace]

@Human_Action

Care to take a stab at a process, just as a thought experiment? I think you’d certainly have to have an amendment to add the process to the Constitution, whatever process you’d end up selecting. I’d say the concerns you’d have to confront and ameliorate are, in some order:

Yes, definitely a constitutional amendment. Super-majority vote, and maybe even a super-majority vote of the other states not leaving to allow it. IOW, some level of mutual consent on both sides.

1. Provision to ensure secession is the will of some sufficient portion of the state or territory (might you consider sub-state level secession, like, say, East Texas or Central Kentucky?)

Not at this point. States are sovereign entities with assumed plenary power.

2. Provision to accomodate those who wish to remain U.S. citizens in some fashion, such as buying their fixed property at fair market value and providing for transportation to another state.

Not sure about that. If it were really hard to move, it might be necessary, but it isn’t that hard.

3. Provision to determine the fate of federal property, both fixed (interstates) and otherwise (military equipment), as well as federal debts and obligations.

Yep. Definitely.

4. For landlocked areas in particular, provision for border crossings and customs.

No. Sorry, but if you’re landlocked you should take that into consideration when you secede.

[Weeping_Wyvern]

@RickJay

2. Secession never ends. Indeed, West Virginia seceded from Virginia because Virginia seceded. If Quebec secedes from Canada, can northern Quebec or west Montreal secede from Quebec? If not, why not? The populations there would be voting against secession, not for it, so why should the line of secession be drawn at the existing border? You’d have a huge, geographically concentrated contingent of people whose rights as Canadian citizens would be lost against their will. Or if you do redraw the border - well, how’d that work out for the Irish counties that voted to stay in the UK?

Towns and counties are creations of the states, and the states have complete control over them. But the states are not creations of the national government; they are partners with it. I’m actually somewhat uncomfortable with the counter-seccession of West Virginia, but I suppose its wartime situation makes it exceptional.

I think U.S. states should be able to succeed if they desire, not because of some generic human right to self-determination, but because this particular country happens to have a federal system of government in which individual states possess a certain amount of sovereignty.

[rogerbox]

@WillFarnaby

Because when the people of the states choose candidates on the state level they pick evil people. But when these same voters choose candidates on the national level they choose benevolent stewards of liberty and morality.

I don’t think that. Do you want to answer the question or not?

[Der_Trihs]

@elbows

Does anyone truly believe that the right and the left will ever find compromise or middle ground? You’ve had a respected middle road/compromise guy trying for four plus years. And you’re still having the real work of government held hostage by obstructionists. Does anyone really see a way out? The right will suddenly see reason, accept gay marriage, embrace this century?

No; most likely the far right will mostly simply die off of old age. And getting rid of the crazies in a particular state that secedes won’t get rid of the crazies in Washington DC.

@Red_Wiggler

Sometimes, like in divorces, people(s) just grow apart. Nobody has to stay married; sometimes two (or more) sides can size up the situation and decide that heading off into different directions might be best for all parties involved. The day may come, for instance, when we all come to the conclusion that breaking up that old gang of ours may be better all around.

We get along fine with our Canadian neighbors. Why couldn’t we do the same with our former fellow Americans? Like I said, this is fun to think about for me – the negative emotions just confuse me.

Because the secessionists in this country are universally motivated by some mix of bigotry, paranoia, religious/political fanaticism, and arrogance. They’d be absolutely terrible neighbors, and highly abusive towards anyone who didn’t agree with them in their new psycho-nation. I’d expect it to escalate to a Cold War at best, possibly an outright nuclear war - the religious crazies might well be of the sort who think the end of the world is a great idea, like Jerry Falwell. Their new nation breaking out in a civil war of its own is another likely possibility; hate filled lunatics get along poorly with each other.

@WillFarnaby

Because when the people of the states choose candidates on the state level they pick evil people. But when these same voters choose candidates on the national level they choose benevolent stewards of liberty and morality.

An exaggeration, but one with truth to it. As a rule, the lower in the federal/state/local hierarchy you go, the more corrupt and nasty and crazy and incompetent the politicians get.

@Weeping_Wyvern

I think U.S. states should be able to succeed if they desire, not because of some generic human right to self-determination, but because this particular country happens to have a federal system of government in which individual states possess a certain amount of sovereignty.

As the joke goes, that viewpoint was largely overruled in the case of Grant versus Lee, 1865.

[DrDeth]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

What of it? People keep asking this question. Am I supposed to be enraged at the thought? I certainly think it would be a stupid move, what with there seemingly being a minimum size for a state to make a go of it alone, but it really doesn’t engender the sort of anger that it seems to in many Americans. I certainly don’t think it’s treasonous to broach the subject, or even petition government for it. If a majority want it, what’s the point in resisting it? You claim it undermines democracy — so does civil discontent if a majority of people want to leave but are prevented from doing so!

There is widespread opposition to Welsh & Scottish independence, why are you Brits so narrow minded? Why doesn’t everyone just let everyone go as they wish? I mean, for hundreds of years the Crown has stubbornly held on to these and even Ireland, why the British opposition?

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

[magellan01]

@Saint_Cad

One issue is the different ways the states became members of the Union.

The original 13 colonies, Texas, California and Hawaii were independent nations before joining the US. The 13 colonies joined what they thought was a Union of sovereign states. Texas wanted to be part of the Union as did California although some could argue that California was never really an independent republic. Hawaii was basically conquered through American interests and seized by the government. These 16 states I believe could have legitimate arguments for the right to secede due to the erosion of state sovereignty over the years. We can argue back and forth over Texas v. White but ultimately the question is: is it fair that a sovereign nation can join a union of sovereign states, lose the sovereignty that they were promised and then be told now you have to live with it.

West Virginia is an interesting case in that it was created by a rebellion within a rebellion. The Second Wheeling Convention was certainly not a republican form of government and SCOTUS punted on this giving up to the political pressures of the time. By all rights, WV should have been given back to Virginia after the war.

The other 33 states never had any separate sovereign status as they were always territories of other countries. Letting them unilaterally secede is an issue since basically it would be “stealing” territory from the US that they have no historical right to.

Excellent post.

[magellan01]

@Human_Action

I can’t speak for others, but the offensive part of the concept to me is that it’s contemptuous of democracy. Part of democracy is abiding by laws you don’t like passed by a government you don’t like. Sometimes you’ll be in favor of the current elected officials, sometimes not. Part of your duty as a citizen is to suck it up when you don’t feel represented, so long as the representation is fair and Constitutional.

So, theoretically, if 100% of a state’s population wanted to secede, what course of action do you think would best serve the concept of democracy?