What if a state wanted out of U.S.


PDA






.45Ruger
April 16, 2003, 11:20 PM
It may seem to be a stretch but let's say at some point in the near future a state decides that they have had enough of Washington's interference and decided to sucede. Would a second CivilWar result or would the right of self determinantion be honored? Just curious what you all think.

If you enjoyed reading about "What if a state wanted out of U.S." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DeltaElite
April 16, 2003, 11:21 PM
I would let California go without a fight. ;)

WilderBill
April 16, 2003, 11:25 PM
I'm with Delte Elite on that.
I think Texas was the only one smart enough to get that provision when they joined the union.

The one time we tried to use, we got the War of Northern Aggression for our trouble. :(

Skunkabilly
April 16, 2003, 11:28 PM
I would let California go without a fight.

I wouldn't. I just want LA and the bay to secede from California :barf:

cuchulainn
April 16, 2003, 11:31 PM
Doesn't Hawaii have a secessionist movement -- wanting to go back to a queen and all that?

cuchulainn
April 16, 2003, 11:40 PM
Answering my own question: Yes, Hawaii has a secessionist movement, and there is some interesting stuff sort of related to the orignial post here:

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/legal.html

and here:

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/news.html

mercedesrules
April 16, 2003, 11:40 PM
Would a second Civil War result or would the right of self-determination be honored?
Before the Civil War it was taken for granted that states could secede. Since that travesty, I'm afraid that Washington, D.C. wouldn't let that happen.

MR

amprecon
April 17, 2003, 12:03 AM
I think Kalifornication needs a regime change. The 4th didn't get much action in Iraq, here's there chance, wouldn't be much of a fight though.

CZ 75 BD
April 17, 2003, 12:10 AM
did not prove seccession wrong, only impractical.

WonderNine
April 17, 2003, 12:17 AM
Doesn't Hawaii have a secessionist movement -- wanting to go back to a queen and all that?

Good....more power too em'. I don't like coconuts or pinneapples anyways...

ahenry
April 17, 2003, 12:32 AM
I think Texas was the only one smart enough to get that provision when they joined the union. It is unfortunate, but it is only a myth that Texas has a provision somewhere that they can secede. I wish it were so, but it is not. As much as I love America (shoot, the National Anthem brings tears to my eyes), I would rather Texas was a Republic again.

Greg L
April 17, 2003, 12:38 AM
I'm afraid that it would never be allowed to happen. I'll put on my tin foil beanie and predict automobile accidents for the leaders of the movement. The Washington DC .gov has gotten to the point where they can't allow any dissention in the ranks for fear of what might happen if people realized that they didn't have to put up with the crap coming from there.

Besides, if they tried they would lose their highway funds... (which seems to be the favorite tactic to keep wayward states in line)

Greg

ahadams
April 17, 2003, 12:41 AM
I agree with DE - except I think the list should be longer.

Places many Americans wish would leave the United States:

CA., MA., DC., hmm...must be a few more besides just that!

Dave R
April 17, 2003, 01:06 AM
I think the Feds would use all available financial pressure. Then all available political pressure, then all available force.

There is ample precedent, ranging from the Civil War to the Bonus March to Waco.

PATH
April 17, 2003, 03:03 AM
The question was resolved at Appamattox Court House in 1865.
THE UNION FOREVER!;)

WonderNine
April 17, 2003, 05:16 AM
Besides, if they tried they would lose their highway funds... (which seems to be the favorite tactic to keep wayward states in line)

Hey it works! :scrutiny:

Guess what, we both have a special place in carnivore right now......

whoami
April 17, 2003, 09:13 AM
I'm afraid that it would never be allowed to happen. I'll put on my tin foil beanie and predict automobile accidents for the leaders of the movement. The Washington DC .gov has gotten to the point where they can't allow any dissention in the ranks for fear of what might happen if people realized that they didn't have to put up with the crap coming from there.

Besides, if they tried they would lose their highway funds... (which seems to be the favorite tactic to keep wayward states in line)

I think it would go WAY beyond that. All federal funds being provided to state governments would be cut. Funds for schools, funds for highways, funds for medicine, you name it. I wouldn't be surprised if federal grants/loans would be cut/denied to residents of the seccessionist state...or at the very least the threat of it. I'd even expect to see border style roadblocks set up at the entry and exitways of the state. Shipments of goods going to/from that state would be subject to all applicable laws/tarrifs/taxes regarding international shipments. It'd probably get REAL ugly.

Of course, it brings an interesting point...with the eradication of federal taxation and federal laws regarding monetary issue, would the state be able to modify it's own structure in order to maintain fiscal solvency away from the government dole? Would the state .gov just become a mini federal .gov?

El Tejon
April 17, 2003, 09:52 AM
I say, I say, I doooo declare, some of y'all tried, I say, attempted to commit treason, but we wasn't having any of it.

.45Ruger, as to what would happen, the Gov. and the General Assembly would be prosecuted for treason.

longeyes
April 17, 2003, 12:35 PM
For all you hotshots who get off on CA seceding, falling into the sea, etc., try imagining a Cuba--with 35 million souls--on your border. I live in L.A. Why don't you all come here and do something to change things? California used to be a great place but it is withering from within. What a lot of you don't get is that the "California disease" is an epidemic that infects ALL of the United States. Don't kid yourself that it doesn't.

444
April 17, 2003, 12:44 PM
The workers paradise would never consider secession. If the state and local governments of that state stand for anything, it is getting every possible penny of tax money and hand outs possible.
Now throwing them out of the club is another story.

"Why don't you all come here and do something to change things?"
I would rather have my eyes poked out with a toothpick than go to LA.

Neal Bloom
April 17, 2003, 12:45 PM
Yup, all the Feds would have to do is cut off all entitlements to the state and the sheep would fall back in line.

The more entitlements doled out the easier to control the sheep.

Cal4D4
April 17, 2003, 12:50 PM
I take this post as more of a "how to" question rather than a challenge to whether secession is possible. Review the **********/Aztlan model. Slack border security with an impoverished country, accomodations for the illegal intruders in jobs, language and benefits. Have the Feddies declare amnesty every generation or so to grant "citizenship" without the scholarship of our Constitution. Add questionable voting security and before you know it you have a new and foreign voting majority and gov representatives reflective of their constituents sympathies. It isn't secession, it's repatriation!

Shweboner
April 17, 2003, 01:17 PM
There was and still is a partial cesession movement out here in the west.

It started before WWII and actually was gaining quite a bit of support politically. They were unhappy with the funding and roads situation. Monies coming from the fed were filtered through the big cities and there was nothing much left for the others, so they decided to create the 51st state (48th at the time I believe) The State of Jefferson consisted of Northern California and Southern Oregon. Mainly rural areas of the two states were fed up with not getting financial support they needed, and also tired of being dictated to from the larger, more liberal cities ( LA, SF, Portland) THe movement came to an abrupt stop when the japs attacked Pearl Harbor, thus starting WWII. Lately the movment has picked up, the website: www.stateofjefferson.com must be lacking $$$ because it was pretty nice a few months ago, now, well you'll see. Im not sure what happened to it??????

I found out about it while on a trip to califorina, driving north on I-5 just before the oregon border, the web address is painted on the roof of a massive shed, you can see it for a mile or so.

Thought I'd pass that along.

~Brian

bastiat
April 17, 2003, 01:30 PM
I believe texas retains the right not to leave the union but to split up into 5 distinct states as part of the union. Which, if you could split it right, would make things with the electoral college a lot more interesting.

GinSlinger
April 17, 2003, 02:17 PM
Texas did originally have the power to secced from the Union. We did, and reverted back to being an independent republic (not a member of the CSA). After the war of Northern Aggression Federal troops occupied Texas. Texas was never readmitted to the Union. At least this is what the Republic of Texas claims. They are an interesting group (not all kooks), and some of their arguments make quite a bit of sense. The question seems to be whether Texas is actually a member of the US, or an occupied territory.

Like I said, interesting, but niave.

GinSlinger

alan
April 17, 2003, 02:38 PM
As I recall my history classes, that was tried once.

El Tejon
April 17, 2003, 02:59 PM
alan, tried more than once!:D First time a Southern POTUS threatened to hang everyone involved in the conspiracy to commit treason. The second time a Yankee POTUS used justice and mercy to stop the treason.

Gin, walked all over the state museum in Austin recently, even asked the staff, but what's the historical cite for this alleged power to leave the Union that Tejas possessed???:confused:

Smoke
April 17, 2003, 03:16 PM
One must also consider the financial aspects of leaving the union; not in the loss of federal monies but in the context of:

Can the state exist independantly? Can it import what it can not produce? Would the US trade with the former state? Does the state have a strong economy independently? If all federal money was cut (which it should be) from the former state, can the state still operate? and at what costs to its new citizens?

I don't think it's practical whether legal or not.

GinSlinger
April 17, 2003, 03:21 PM
El Tejon:

It revolves around the fact that the Republic of Texas was the only state added by international treaty. The RoT entered after the treaty was signed by the congress' of both the US and RoT. The real tip-toe act comes here: International treaties are mutable (witness Bush's recent treatment of several treaties with regards to Star Wars), therefore the RoT COULD back out of the Union (during the war of Northern aggression). However, the RoT no longer exsisted, it was a state. A special election was held to appoint reps to vote for seccision using the RoT original constitution, but was never convened.

The argument (for TX seccesion) falls apart based on the fact that there was no longer a second (RoT) member of the treaty, so the treaty can now only be changed by the USC. However, there have been some recent developments in the International body (the Czech Republic/Slovakia dissolution) to lend some credence to this thought.

I know this is rambling, the Republic of Texas does a better job of explaining their position, but it doesn't work %100 one way or the other IMHO.

GinSlinger

Coltdriver
April 17, 2003, 05:08 PM
You may be delighted to hear of this:

http://www.freestateproject.org/

The plan is for 20,000 plus people of like mind to move to a state and essentially take over, then to take the next step.

If you read the constitution, the means for a state to succede is there.

If you read history, it is not.

Then there is somthing called a constitutional convention which was very close to being called (has to be a standing motion in the legislatures of 32 states). It was hovering around 28 or so for a long time. I read recently where the motion was vacated in several states in the past five years. A constitutional convention is a meeting of the states for the purpose of re writing the constituion.

QuarterBoreGunner
April 17, 2003, 05:15 PM
Hey come on now, I'd be the first to admit that Kali has it's problems but can we be a little more selective about what spots we drop into the ocean?

But if we did secede from the union we might and I stress might do ok. According to 2001 stats, we have the 6th highest GPD in the world. And after France surrenders we'll have the 5th.

Then we have the coúp and reistitute some sanity in our government.

Oh yeah I almost forgot- we nuke Berkeley.

Kaylee
April 17, 2003, 05:18 PM
The second time a Yankee POTUS used justice and mercy to stop the treason

I'll be sure to remember that next time I go walking through beautiful historic downtown Atlanta. ;)


-K

grampster
April 17, 2003, 06:19 PM
Here in Meechigan, the yoopers in the Upper would like to secede from the state. Want to call it Superior. Actually, I would like to turn the Upper into a state park and appoint everyone who could prove they were born there as a fish/game/land warden and charge admission to everyone but me in order to raise the money for the pay of the wardens.
grampster :D ;)

Bonker
April 17, 2003, 06:41 PM
Oh man I wish Texas would seceed!

We have never ONCE gotten anywhere near the money back we pay to Washington while many states gets MUCH more back than they pay in. Why are we punished for running a better state?
But yes I am sure the federal thugs would never allow us to leave alive.

Texas would become the 14th largest economy in the world. I think we'd do just fine :)


The REAL solution is just to force Washington DC to seceed :)

El Tejon
April 17, 2003, 07:03 PM
Gin, oh, I see. Analogous to the 16th Amendment doesn't exist set. I thought there was some sort of document you were pointing to. I looked all over the museum and even asked a confused staff in Austin for this. But only received shrugs.

Bonker, if DC becomes a state, can we then declare it to be a terrorist state?;)

Bonker
April 17, 2003, 07:08 PM
"Bonker, if DC becomes a state, can we then declare it to be a terrorist state?"

Good idea! I'd also consider them a rogue nation and the newest member of the axis of evil.

Mark Tyson
April 17, 2003, 10:55 PM
Alaska was toying with the idea back in the 70's or 80's I believe. There was even an Alaska Independence Party if I recall correctly. I think they won the governorship once.

El Tejon
April 17, 2003, 11:04 PM
Bonker, hmmm, the SEALs are close and . . . .:p

Diesle
April 17, 2003, 11:06 PM
Conceptually and even legally there may be a way out but that has nothing to do with reality or feasbility.

Ill take land retention for $1000 please Wink...


Diesle

Zander
April 18, 2003, 01:43 AM
I would let California go without a fight.I wouldn't; that's where the revolution should start. No question but what that state is, on whole, one of the very worst in terms of abrogating and infringing the inherent Rights of its subjects [who at one time were citizens].

As needs to be said in English:

Long live the revolution!!!

And may it take place in such additional states controlled by anti-Constitutionalists/sociofascists as Illinois, New York and New Jersey...

bad_dad_brad
April 18, 2003, 02:20 AM
Come on folks.

Without some kind of total ecomomic and social breakdown, state seccession is not going to happen. Gee whiz, just a bunch of idle speculation.

Get real, this 2003 not 1863.

WilderBill
April 18, 2003, 02:45 AM
Ahh declare, Washington DC already is a state...of confusion.;)

Tim Burke
April 18, 2003, 10:20 AM
a Yankee POTUS used justice and mercy to stop the treason
I forget. Was Sherman Justice or Mercy?
More examples of justice and mercy may be found here. (http://www.sobran.com/columns/001212.shtml)

Navy joe
April 18, 2003, 12:16 PM
So I guess our little adventure in the 1770's was treason against the crown then correct?

Amazing how everybody can whine and moan about our evermore powerful federal.gov while not realizing that the Civil War forever settled the arguement between proponents of weak and strong central governments. Being from a state used to mean something, now it's just what name is on the tax check. Treason was what Mr. "Justice and Mercy" forever did to weaken our Constitution.

Had it not been for one of Tennessee's first wishy-washy politicians that felt a little bad for his homeland and weakened reconstruction we would still be suffering from all that justice and mercy that was gonna get used by the original statist to teach the South a lesson. As it is we have barely recovered, but did so without starting another war which while undesirable would have surely been the result of a harsher version of "justice and mercy".

Hmm, military governors, un-American laws, installed puppet governments, land confiscation. Yep, sounds like justice and mercy to me.

Somebody please tell me again how the war was for the poor down-trodden negroes like all our history books say. You know, the ones who weren't freed in the north until near the end of the war.
While we're at it, someone tell me how the backlash of resentment towards installed black legislators of the 1870's-80s didn't set us back 80 years in repairing race relations.

stevelyn
April 18, 2003, 01:07 PM
Alaska was toying with the idea.........

Some still are. There still is an Alaska Independence Party. It is a large enough third party to cause upsets in elections and has Libertarian tendencies as part of it's platform. As for an AI candidate winning an election, Walter Hickle did win the governor's mansion as a candidate on the AI ticket. But that was out of legal expediency rather than genuine support of the party platform. When Gov. Hickle entered the race, the primaries had already been decided and no notable difference could be found between the Socialist democratic and Socialist GOP candidates, so he agreed to run as a conservative using the AIP as a vehicle. He turned out to be a good governor. Too bad his successor screwed everything up for the next 8 years. When he left office, he renounced his support for the AIP and returned to the GOP.
Alaskans don't really want to leave the Union. They DO however want the Union to honor the Statehood Compact that both agreed upon and stop the incessant federal meddling in our governmental and economic affairs and constant land grabs.

Partisan Ranger
April 18, 2003, 02:17 PM
If you haven't joined yet, think about it:


www.freestateproject.com

Imagine living in a state/country where your money isn't taken from you and given to other people, where the right to bear arms is taken seriously, and you don't need a building permit to work on your own freakin' house.

Mark Tyson
April 18, 2003, 09:02 PM
What about an autonomous state which simply refuses to cooperate in enforcing federal laws, but which is still part of the U.S.? A distant federal government can't do much by itself, it needs the cooperation of local authorities to be effective in anything.

KP95DAO
April 19, 2003, 12:03 AM
Ah yes, the AIP. That brings up some fond memories. There was a time when I kindred spirit of that group. Now I have only the literature and the letters and memories of phone conversations with Joe. May God rest his soul.

atek3
April 19, 2003, 02:25 AM
The question was resolved at Appamattox Court House in 1865. THE UNION FOREVER!

Please say you are being sarcastic.
If you seriously believe that secession is a crime punishable by the deaths of over 500,000 people, than I say, reread the founding fathers. They envisioned a structure in which the individual States delegated power to a Federal authority to carry out several actions, national defence, money coining etc. Secession was an Implied Right. Or at least it was until the northern butchers destroyed the union in order to save it.

atek3

QuickDraw
April 19, 2003, 02:57 AM
I could be full of baloney,but I recall reading somewhere that
as long as the Feds own land in a state ie;national parks,mil.
bases etc,the state can't leave the union.If you'll notice,
every state has some federally owned land.Comments?

QuickDraw

stevelyn
April 19, 2003, 09:17 AM
Mark Tyson,

You might be on to something there. But I can assure you that they will send in an occupying army, federalize local police agencies, and administer the day to day activities of the wayward state as a federal protectorate.
The Free State project is the best option we have at the moment.

If you enjoyed reading about "What if a state wanted out of U.S." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!