You read the topic heading correctly....Secession. It has reared it's head once again. Contrary to what many Americans believe, there was no amendment passed in the post-Civil War years (Reconstruction Era) that official made it illegal for a State to secede from the Union. The question here becomes, if that should be something added to the Constitution or should States be "allowed" (that is a tricky phrase) to break from the United States. Many people believed that the question of secession was closed once the Civil War ended, but there is a growing movement amongst several States to either completely break from the Union (forming their own independent country) or portions of a State wishing to break from their current State and forming a new State.
Read this article that appeared in The Daily Beast on Sept. 12th of this year. - Secession Fever Sweeps Texas, Maryland, Colorado, and California. (This article focuses on three of the States that have the greatest traction toward some form of secession, but there are a few additional ones that have just begun to move in that direction)
This Week's Blog Topic:
Should States be allowed to secede from the United States? Do they have the "right" (another tricky phrase) to do so? Would such an a move create extreme problems for the United States, as a whole? Do you believe that this could lead to another "civil war"? Or is this simply (as the article seems to hint at), a movement lead by disgruntled Republicans and Libertarians (conservatives)?
Everyone is going to bring up the technical “Declaration of Indpendence” argument in suport of state secession. And while I do recognize that as being a solid fact, I do not think that argument can be applied in todays world. When the American colony seceded from Britain it was under far different circumstances. For example our colony was separated by the mother country by an ocean, taxed excessively, and set rules by parliament that did not offer representation. I know that these issues are far more complex, but to make my point these were substantial grievances. The states that are whining for seccession now are not being oppressed, do have proper representation, and are always able to vote for their leaders. Not liking the policies of the Obama administration (or that of any liberal) does not justifiy seceding. If that’s the way U.S. politics are going to operate now on, when a Conservative president comes into office are the liberal states able to secede as well? No, doesn’t make sense to me. Unless there are substantial reasons behind the seccession like unfair treatment or oprression, these states do not have right to leave the United States. Not agreeing with the ideolgy of the current president does not justify such an extreme movement.
ReplyDeleteIf these states do decide to do the unthinkable and secede, the effort would fail immediately. Even though Texas does have oil, (just like the South had farming) this one natural resource will not be enough to build a new country off of. Texas would collapse before a War would even start. And if a war DID occur the U.S. military would CRUSH what Texas could put together in amonth or two. The whole idea of state seccession isn’t even beneficial or reasonable for the state seceding.
I agree with you when you say that if a state would succeed, they would be crushed. In fact i believe that a state is very unlikely to secede due to the great abundant ties it has to the Union. However what do you mean when you say "The states that are whining for seccession now are not being oppressed?" How do you think they should be "oppressed" and why do you believe o?
DeleteBy oppressing I do not believe that they should be oppressed physically with military involvement. I think that the government should display their discontent to the states who desire to discontent.
DeleteWhy does a state need to have "substantial" reason to secede? Please show me where it says that if a state is allowed to secede, they need a substantial reason to do so. If a state wanted to secede because they hate the Obama administration (they have better reasons right now than that) or just because they feel like it they can do it.
DeleteYou also say that we can not compare what happened back then to the colonies to today's world. History repeats itself. Although it is not the same exact problem, the idea behind secession is the same.
Yeah bishoy but your missing the point. History does repeat itself but not under the same circumstances. These states were not being oppressed, had representation, and were rather being moody because of what the government was doing. Also yea all states should have a legitamite reason to secede because if your not being oppressed or treated unfairly why would you attempt to seperate from the nation anyway. This would just turn people against you and make the state look ignorant.
DeleteI believe that states do have the right to secede, if they feel as though they are losing out under federal rule. I am one of those who view the Constitution as a “contract” as many of these states do, and if things aren’t working out in Texas or “Jefferson”, they should be allowed to secede if it’s what’s in their best interests. (Do I think this would last permanently? No. As many of the comments in the article pointed out, many of these wanna-be states don’t have the means to support themselves without federal aid.)
ReplyDeleteThe secession movement would certainly hurt the United States economically. With a $17 trillion debt that keeps rising, and with less taxes coming in from states that left the union, our country would plummet into far more debt at an exponentially faster rate than before.
However, a civil war seems impossible. These four wanna-be states simply don’t have the economic or military assets to win a war against the United States.
But at what point do you think a state is able to say it has had enough and its secession is able to be justified? In other words, what becomes the last straw for a state to secede? The arguments presented in the articles appear to me like the states are just bitter over the Obama administration. If a state is threatening to secede over the party in charge that shows a sign of the inability of party compromise from both sides. Not anything that has to do with an individual state.
DeleteI think there is no specific "last straw." I believe that as Melissa states, a state should be able to secede when it deems that the "contract" is not proficient for them. Whether this be over the Obama administration as you say or whether the issue be even smaller. However, the main point behind my statement is that although the states should have the right to secede, in today's time period none will be able to successfully secede especially over a small issue as the Obama administration.
DeleteSo if a state were to secede just because they did not like the legislation being proposed by Obama would you let it happen? I would be completely against such at action. I do not think that it is correct for a state to be able to depart from the Union for such minuscule reasons. Man people bring up the point of the Declaration of Independence to provide precedence however, as I stated in my post, when the Declaration of Independence was proposed, the colonies had legitimate grievances. Today, there are no injustices that are being carried through which are comparable to that time.
DeleteAs I previously explained, it is highly unlikely that a state would secede just because they because they don’t agree with the Obama administration. There would be an abundance of cons for the state to make such a move and very little pros. But lets say they a state were to secede over such a small issue, do I think its justified? Yes I do. I believe that it s a right of the “sovereign” states to end the contract when the feel necessary. But will this ever happen? I do not think so.
DeleteMel, I agree with you that, if the states feel like its best for them to break away from the nation, they should. It is their natural right to do so. Even though it crosses the bounds of legality, the Constitution could be easily overlooked by the seceding states. Like they are already seceding, so why would they pay attention to the Constitution any longer. Despite all these, I still do think that, the it is absurd and an act of the 'dullness of mind' if these states do secede. They don't have enough resources to last and they would just crumble.
DeleteI also view the Constitution as a contract. If the states enjoined in this contract are not getting the attention and help they deserve, they have ever right to break away from this contract. Like any contract, if you break away too early or just in general, there are consequences (like how you have to pay up to $200 when breaking a 2-year cell phone contract). As Abu said, the Constitution state “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation." Possible military action from the US government would ensue to try to hold the Union together.
DeleteI completely agree that these states do not have the means to be able to succeed. They will be fighting to survive, and probably not last long as a succeeded state. You also bring up the point of the military. You and Abu brought up similar points, and they were very interesting. Both of you discussed the concept of the state not being able to support itself. Also, it will effect the whole country as well.
DeleteStates should definitely have the right to secede from the United States. This is due to the fact that our nation was founded on this premise. The Declaration of Independence could be applied as precedence for any area to be able to secede. However, whether the states actually have the right to secede is very debatable. The Confederation formulated during the civil War is often brought up as an example to show that states do have the right to secede. However, the Constitution states, “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation.” Therefore the Confederation generated was actually against the law.
ReplyDeleteLets suppose that the States do have the right to secede from the Union. There is nothing wrong with this. In today’s world, it is very unlikely for a state to secede. The article presented above explains that there would be too many issues that would arise making it difficult to secede. For example, the new nation would have to create its own military. Therefore, it is better if the United States not take any action on these movements. If they do it would just create more trouble in the nation. I believe that this issue is nothing more than a movement lead by resentful Libertarians and Republicans.
"Therefore the Confederation generated was actually against the law." But if a state secedes they are no longer part of America, thus they do not follow the American Constitution.
DeleteYou also say that there is nothing wrong with a state seceding. Although I agree that they have a right to secede, in them doing so would be detrimental to the American economy. It would cause a lot of problems that America is not in the position to be able to deal with right now.
It was interesting what you said about being able to succeed today. It would be hard for a state to succeed, like you said, they have no military power. What would they have to fight with? Also, by forming a military, they are spending so much money that they dont have. So, it basically all goes back to the financial means that they also do not have.
DeleteWhy can't a state secede? If the people of that state do not feel like being ruled by the American government, if they feel oppressed or simply do not want to be controlled anymore by our government, then why can't they just take the land and form their own government system and a new nation? It seems sort of tyrannical if the state and its people are not allowed to secede. We are saying that a group of people are not allowed to live on the earth with their own rules, but need to be ruled over by a certain group of people. Besides, there is no document declaring that the sovereign states can not secede. There is nothing in the constitution declaring states can not secede.
ReplyDeleteNow I am saying they are "allowed" to secede, I do no think that a state can survive outside of the Union unless all the states secede. America would need to become a Europe if a state were to survive that seceded from the union.
I do not think the states will secede. It's all bark and no bite. States know that they would not survive without the Union. As for the civil war, I doubt one would occur. They would most likely try to solve the problem diplomatically. Besides who would fight in the"war"? A small militia verse the American military? That would just be a massacre.
I agree that a state cannot survive outside of the Union unless all the other states secede, with the exception of Texas. It would be really weird if there were random countries within the United States. Texas is the only state that can survive on its own. Texas has been pondering and plan this course of action for a while. Texas is an outlier; it is a unique state that does not follow the trends of the others and can sustain itself without outside help.
DeleteJamie do you really feel Texas can secede and survive on its own as an independent country? Lets say our military didn't intervene. Are you aware of all the problems Texas would face as an infant country still in our territory. They would need new trading, set up a government, and devlop everything we had as a young nation. However, in this day and age it is improbable that they would be able to be self suffieicient and devlop itself as a country within america. Help would certainly not come easy from us and they would not survive as a country.
DeleteIn response to Jamie's comment, I find it highly unlikely that Texas would be able to support itself on it's own if it were to secede. Perhaps once upon a time it was better suited to self-government; now, however, it doesn't have the financial means to support itself. And it doesn't have many goods or services it could offer for trade to the outside world either, if it were to secede.
DeleteInstead of saying should states be allowed or have the right; I would rather word it as “should states have the option to succeed if they demand it?” I believe, like many other of these fine women and gentle fish, that states should have this option. This is mainly because yes, I know we were found on the basis of succession, and yes I do agree with Maya’s point that the circumstances are much different in this 21st century view, but I think as sovereign states they should be able to make the decision to leave. Now do they have the right? I wouldn’t call it a right because they do have the legal obligation to be able to just break away. They may have the option and the power but the United States has not given the right to any states to be allowed to succeed. Abu brought up the great point, which I didn’t think about, that the constitution says “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation.” So in a way we don’t give them the right but rather a consequential option.
ReplyDeleteWould a states succession cause extreme problems in the U.S.? Not the extent that it had during the Civil War but it would definitely cause a disruption especially because of the poor state the government/nation is currently in. But it would be even more so more problematic for the state that is succeeding because of all the issues they would face. Texas, although they may think they are, is not at the level to be self-sufficient and survive on its own. They may have natural resources but would find extreme issues in setting up their own governments, new trade routes, and attempting to justify themselves in the world. Not to mention that the U.S., if they wished, would militarily crush Texas’ secedes to dust. This is mainly why, in this day and age, it would not happen and is unethical for a state to succeed. The nation may still be experiencing growing pains but is no longer in the developing stage were other territories can be independent. So even if a state tried to succeed I think it ultimately fail before conflict started. As everyone else said, which I had forgotten to mention, their reason for succession developed from just a bunch of whinny cry babies. Because they dislike what the government is doing does not give them a good enough reason to break apart. They are not being oppressed but rather and crying for attention.
I personally think that the talk of state succession is just blowing smoke, and kind of an outlandish thought. Although, I could be wrong. I definitely agree with you that a secession of either 1 state or more could be detrimental to our country's foundation. I think these possible states need to practice their sovereignty to their benefit, and should not be able to have the right to be sore losers or traitors to our union.
DeleteI believe that it is just the right of the States to secede from the Union. And that the people of the states have the right to inaugurate a new government and establish their own individuality if they feel as though as they are being suppressed by the current government. Also, as Jefferson worded in the Declaration of Independence, "...Right ought to be Free and Independent States" to present the idealism of secession is clearly the natural right of the people of the states. However, in actuality secession crosses the bounds of legality and it is rather opposed by the Constitution itself. This whole legal argument is depicted in Article I Section 10 of the very doctrine and as Abu quoted, "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation…."
ReplyDeleteIf the TX, MD, CO and CA ever act upon the idealism of secession, they would only be run over by the United States, and they might only end up like the South during the post-Civil War years.. True, most of these states are economically sound, but they aren't sound enough to establish a 'strong-enough' nation to last.
Economic wise, I think the whole debacle that secession presents would definitely hurt the nation as a whole. And if these four states successfully secede, I believe it would only inspire other states to entertain the idea of secession and it might only lead to a domino effect: there goes four states, and maybe some other states might follow. Thus, if the secession of these four states is successful, the nation might only see it's unity crumble. (not that secession of these four states is even possible, given the circumstances) On the other hand, I don't think that this whole idea could ensue a Civil War within the U.S. I think the four states of Texas, Maryland, Colorado, and California, is logical enough to see the possible repercussions if they ever fight and go into war with the U.S. They would only end up economically hurt and full of resentment.
I agree that they have the right too but i dont think they should. It will just cause unneccessry problems. Also, they dont have the financial
DeleteStability.
As jen said, I agree that yes, they do have the right to secede, but I would not recommened it because nothing positive woudl result from doing so. States succession would open up a door for problems to arise, and if a seceding from the United states would only lead to the imblance of finacancial stablity. The individual state, would not be able to survive on its own. (not self-sufficent)
DeleteI know many people have incorporated or paraphrased the 10th amendment which states:
Delete"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
But if a state disagrees with the workings of its federal government, shouldn't they practice this right in forms of voting and exercising your liberties under this amendment?? That is the essential purpose of the amendment.
Whatever happened to the rights stated in the Declaration of Independence? the people are given the rights to establish a new government whenever they felt as though as they are being suppressed and aren't adhered to. They have the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and if they feel that they are better off, alone they should be. But, again it isn't advisable.
DeleteShould the states be allowed to succeed? No, but they do have the right to. Every state has the absolute right to succeed, but it will never be a permanent action. The states are not financially stable enough to be able to go off on their own. They will have no resources to be able to survive as their own country.
ReplyDeleteSecond of all, if they states were to succeed, this would cause some conflict, but not enough for a civil war. It is the same reason as to why they cannot succeed. They simply do not have the economic funds, or the military assets in order to fight. The state that succeeded would just loose more money, and the country would not be able to stand alone. This is a movement of the Republicans and the Libertarians.
I am confused on how you say that they should not be allowed to secede but they have the right to. Is the government depriving them of their rights then? The states are allowed to secede, whether it is a right or not is the questionable part. If they do secede, but it is not constitutionally correct, will that matter because they are not part of America thus the constitution does not affect them.
DeleteYou talk about how the states shouldn't be allowed to secede but wouldn't that take the soveriegnity away from the states and basically feel they are under tyranical control? Then you say they "have the right", but i disagree. Mainly because where do we as a nation state they have the right to? It is their soveriegnity that gives them the power to seperate from a suppressive nation but that isnt to say the US wouldnt act upon it.
DeleteBishoy, I think what Jen meant is that, they shouldn't be allowed to secede due to the legality of it based on the premises of the Constitution. Then, they have the right to, based on the Declaration of Independence and just because it's their natural right. Anyways, I was rather fascinated by your statement, "is the government depriving them of their rights." It got me thinking, if the Declaration of Independence stated that we have the right to liberty, life and pursuit of happiness, then it kinda relates to the idealism of secession. States are comprise of people, thus, these rights applies to them. If they want to secede, so be it. But, then there's the legality question, in which the Constitution deemed secession illegal. But then again, they are seceding so why would they care about the Constitution anymore. So yeah, I think, the Constitution kinda constricted the rights of the states.
DeleteThere is a difference between both. As of right now they do have the right, but i personally do not think they should. That is the point I was trying to get across. Bishoy, to me its as controversial as abortion, where it is an inherit right to be able too but many people believe the women should not be allowed too.
DeleteI agree that perhaps some of these counties could not last as countries, but they could make it as states. It is very possible for a state to prosper on its own. Take Texas for example: it is economically stable, has its own sources of energy, and they are strongly against a uniform education system, which adds to their preparedness if they ever needed to secede.
DeleteI agree with you that it is recommended that a state shoudl not secede, but kind of have the right to secede. And the main reason for this is only due to the state would not be self-sufficent to survive all by itself in our harsh world. As, they would step foot into the world isolated from teh United Sates, states that seceded, would immediatly be diminshed.
DeleteI think that states should have the option to secede from the United States. Like Abu brought up that he Confederation formulated during the civil War is often brought up as an example to show that states do have the right to secede. However, the Constitution states, “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation.” Therefore the Confederation generated was actually against the law. The only thing is that “Do states have the “right” to secede?” Like Bishoy said “why can’t we secede”? I mean that if one is feeling confined and does not want to abide by the rules of our government, then so be it. If they want to break feel, who is to stop them. It is not like they are committing a felony, though by breaking free, it is not be recommended. Only due to the fact, that a states succession can easily be demolished because, it is not self-sufficient enough to run on its own. If the states were to secede, there wouldn’t be as much damaged done as there was during the Civil War. This is merely, nothing other than a movement by the unhappy Libertarians and Republicans.
ReplyDeleteSince the United States is composed of "sovereign" states and nothing in the Constitution prohibits secession, I think states posses the right to succeed. More problems would arise, however, if the number of states in the country dramatically increased. The counties in Maryland, California, and Colorado are pretty much thinking of succession because the rural areas of their state are being politically ignored; they have little influence when making political decisions. Each new state would be created to please those ignored; if the liberals are being ignored, then they will form a primarily liberal state. Elections would be dramatically divided. Eventually, tangent views would develop again within these new states, and some will be ignored yet again, causing another round of secession. Perhaps another Civil War-type conflict would occur. The Civil War was about power and balance between the free and slave states; each new state, with their own specific views, could try to influence and create new states of their own so their party would gain more power.
ReplyDeleteTo address your statement, "nothing in the Constitution prohibits secession" Article I Section 10 of the United States Constitution states that "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation…." Thus the word confederation. With accordance to the Constitution, it isn't acceptable. But then again, if these states want to secede, it is their right to. Besides, the Declaration of Independence states that " ...Right ought to be Free and Independent States" Thus, 'independent states.' So when you think of it, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence with regards to the ideology of secession, contradicts each other. On another note, despite my belief that these states have the right to secede, I just think that it would not be the smartest move. They don't have enough assets to establish themselves as a nation and to make that individuality last.
DeleteI agree with you that states have teh right to secede (somewhat), and taht problems would emerge if states suucession woudl occur, but I don't think that there would be enough damage done to cause another Civil war.
DeleteI see your point regarding "they have the right," but Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, suggested that secession may not be legally possibe because
Delete1) the United States would not be party to a lawsuit on the issue 2) the “constitutional” basis of secession had been “resolved by the Civil War”
3) there is no right to secede ( Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line “one nation, indivisible.)
These are three valid points to expand upon when making an argument.
Karish, your statement "but I don't think that there would be enough damage done to cause another Civil war." I don't get what you mean by 'enough damage done' and it's relation to your sentence prior that. I mean, if the states really fight for their secession to a point,that it needs addressing, I think a Civil War would ensue. However, I believe that these states are rational enough to think about the repercussions if they fight of secession.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe states should not be able to secede from the union, regardless of sovereign principles. This one concept should be an exception. Ultimately, united we stand divided we fall, and if we allowed this to happen, we would no longer be a leading world power if an x amount seceded. Although, as sovereign states they should not have the option to secede due to their original commitment to the union. And lastly, economically, it is best to stay as we are.
ReplyDeleteI don't even understand why their ability to secede is up for debate. Of Course they should be able to. Sovereign States. SOVEREIGN. That should answer the question of their secession-able status through and through. If states did secede however, may not be good for the people of the nation. I don't think states should secede, but I do think that as sovereign states they do have the right. Honestly, this probably would lead to a war. But not a civil war, but a war of a dozen spilnter-states and secessionist organizations. A state leaving would set precedence that others would follow. This would tumble into an unstoppable force, in a snowball-esque movement
ReplyDeleteI found your concept of a smaller internal war interesting. Could you elaborate some more?
DeleteYou just can't make an exception that big. First, it's illegal. Second, it would destroy government credibility. People would not ignore such an injustice.
ReplyDelete