Several threads on TEXIT and rebellion recently got me to thinking.

Why can states NOT secede from the union? Yes, there's the argument that question of secession was answered by the results of the Civil War. The North won and therefore, the South was not allowed to leave the union.

However, that situation sounds almost like what you'd get in a bad marriage. One person wants to leave. The other one says NO. So, the first person says **** you and bails.

The second person then kicks the **** out of the first one, dragging them kicking and screaming back to the house and telling them that if they ever try to leave again, they'll get the **** kicked out of them again. And then the second person spends years punishing first one for DARING to try to leave the relationship.

In domestic affairs, we'd say the second person is an abuser and 100% in the wrong. In secession affairs, it appears the message is "suck it".

Is that REALLY how we keep the union together? By force, regardless of the views of states that may not want to be part of the union anymore?

NOTE: This is not a thread questioning whether states that secede can achieve success after they leave.

This thread is addressing the fundamental question of whether a state or states CAN leave and if they cannot, why not?

TEXIT!!!!!!

Well, Texas v. White came after the war. So technically it doesn't apply until 1868 onwards. I think secession was very much an open debate discussion being that New England tried it in 1812, and even New York in 1863. The country was seen much more differently then, being referred to as "these united states" instead of "the united states."

I guess some believed the Constitution to be more of a contract that didn't necessarily bind them to anything, but since it was ratified by the people it *must've* bound them. But these were the attitudes then.

The US didn't have the right to leave England either. It's not something you ask to do.

It's a great question and no law or court ruling will ever be able to justify an abused partner being forced to stay with their abuser. Even the Texas v White ruling posted above.

However, I can see logistical issues where a central state trying to secede would be S.O.L. due to being completely surrounded by their oppressor.

But a border state seceding, in my opinion, is perfectly fair provided they give up any perks awarded by being in the union and likely take on a form of debt from the original country. They likely would also be required to sign a military and trade alliance as a form of seceding.

Any other answer is simply stockholm syndrome.

Quote:

---

However, that situation sounds almost like what you'd get in a bad marriage

---

It is more of a contract. To break the contract you need the consent of all parties.
You are a citizen of the United States and a resident of a state.

ballchain said:

---

I think if enough states banded together for secession, the clowns in DC would have nothing except military force to dissuade.

It would end up in civil war, but I think the leaving party would win.

---

That is what the states who have agreed to give up their electoral votes to the national popular vote, have already agreed to, no? They are the ones that want out of the union.

TexAgs91 said:

---

The US didn't have the right to leave England either. It's not something you ask to do.

---

Exactly. Just like the revolutionaries, you tell them why and then you do it - and be prepared to fight for your freedom and live/die with the consequences.

Amicable separation with joint military cooperation and free trade would be a far preferable option, but the left will never willingly give up control of such vast resources. The moochers need the producers to survive.

Agreed. This is not something you ask for. You do it. I seem to recall at some point that Texas joining the union had an out clause, if they wanted to exercise it. Maybe my memory is off on that, though.

That being said, the whole standing army, currency, international affairs (state affairs), international trade and a whole host of other issues rear there head, if you all of a sudden decide to go it alone as a country.

We're a long way off from the way things are creating a situation where we would want to give secession a go and deal with what that really means. The devil you know.....

The 9th and 10th amendments guarantee the right of states to secede.

They won't let us out without a fight. They believe there is no right and that's what matters.

I wish we could get a conservative president who would allow a breakup and we could end this joke of a union.

doubledog said:

---

Quote:

---

However, that situation sounds almost like what you'd get in a bad marriage

---

It is more of a contract. To break the contract you need the consent of all parties.
You are a citizen of the United States and a resident of a state.

---

Well, in the marriage example, you're basically saying that if the marriage gets abusive, the abused party cannot terminate the marriage unless the abusing party consents.

So, with states wishing to secede, are you a saying that even if some states, or the federal government, become abusive to other states, the only way the abused states can get out of the union is if the abusive states agree? Why would they agree?

IF the Union is essentially dissolving (i.e a meaningful number of states are deciding to separate), I'm not sure it really matters what the prior legal precedent is.

C@LAg said:

---

the supreme court ruled on this.

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.

---

And roe v wade made it legal to murder babies in the womb.

Semi-related, but I also believe that every contract known to man includes a sunset clause whether explicitly written or implicitly understood. The implicit understanding varies based on the party, but if not explicitly written then the contract can become void if an abused party wants out for cause.

Therefore for anyone that thinks joining the union is a contract (which is was), that does not mean all states are permanently locked at the hip to their oppressor. Just my 2 cents.

TexAgs91 said:

---

The US didn't have the right to leave England either. It's not something you ask to do.

---

Wait untill a financial collapse, or a point at which the federal govt. Is too taxed to respond adequately.

That's about the only way.

C@LAg said:

---

ChemEAg08 said:

---

And roe v wade made it legal to murder babies in the womb.

---

yet it was the law for 50 years.

and T vs W is still the law at this time.

so until such time as the law is overridden, it is the law that states cannot secede.

---

Let's rephrase the question so we do not get answers such as "it is the law".

Let's say Washington (seattle, not DC) declares their intention to secede and stops sending taxes to DC, sends notice that they will accept %X of the U.S. national debt, return all mobile and digital federal resources (not buildings or land), agree to a military and trade alliance, and other peaceful reasonable declarations.

What do you think would be an acceptable response from the U.S. federal government or other 49 states if a state or group of states seceded?

The correct way is for the States to petition for a Constitutional Convention with 36 of 50 supporting and then a 3/4 vote on an amendment to dissolve the union.

Believe it was Georgia that held out during the original forming of the US demanding to have an out should they not like the new country.

The less correct way is war. But war can be swifter and more effective.

BTW - If you close your eyes real tight you can almost see the boys in polos, khaki pants and sunglasses laughing in the conference room in Quantico figuring out who is trying to talk about insurrections on f16.

How about this idea. DeSantis defeats Trump for the nom then DeSantis beats Biden or Newsome in the general despite their cheating. Then the Libtards as they did in 2016, start talking about leaving for Canada or leaving the Union. This time we encourage them to get the hell out and stay out, even offer to buy their houses. Anything as long as they just go.

Problem solved no Civil War in which the #2 eco power faces off against the worlds 3rd largest which would leave North America a smoking crater. We remain in the US to refine and reform the gov and we get rid of the cancer and they get rid of US. Win Win

ttu_85 said:

---

How about this idea. DeSantis defeats Trump for the nom then DeSantis beats Biden or Newsome in the general despite their cheating. Then the Libtards as they did in 2016, start talking about leaving for Canada or leaving the Union. This time we encourage them to get the hell out and stay out, even offer to buy their houses. Anything as long as they just go.

Problem solved no Civil War in which the #2 eco power faces off against the worlds 3rd largest which would leave North America a smoking crater. We remain in the US to refine and reform the gov and we get rid of the cancer and they get rid of US. Win Win

---

Remember as a kid when you threatened to run away from home and your parents told you to go ahead and saying you would be crying to be let back in by sundown? That would be Dems trying to live a couple of hours without Rs around to protect them, hold a job and provide food and shelter for them.

Ag with kids said:

---

Is that REALLY how we keep the union together? By force, regardless of the views of states that may not want to be part of the union anymore?

---

Yep. Free country. Isn't it.

The whole southern pride and battle flag starting to make more sense now.

How about not seceding but kicking some of the other states out? Start with California.
If they don't want to follow the Constitution and American values...then get the hell out.

There's no defined or set way of doing it. Can it happen? Yep. Will it happen? Maybe

I kind of hope it does happen, at least for a short duration, to reset the machine.

This is an eye opening thread. The legal framework of political separation has for millennia been based almost entirely on warfare. The idea of independence based on the outcome of court pursuits is pretty novel and then mostly based on the aftermath of victory on the battlefield.

The 2nd amendment wasn't a new concept at the end of the 18th century. It was the codification of the natural order of things that living beings are, and should be, dangerous. The rattlesnake neither seeks nor requires a permit for fangs and venom. Nature allows it.

Millennia of human history are the stories of war victors. Kill the men, rape the women, sell the children as slaves. Right, wrong, or otherwise, that's just how it was done. The idea that the separation of polities in the 21st century should be based on any principle other than military force and violence is ignorant of the history and nature of humans.

If we decide to be politically independent from the rest of this Union, rest assured, it will involve violence.

Again, I ask how does a state secede when the major population centers with all the jobs and all money obviously have no desire to do so.

I encourage all of you to study the "Copperheads" of the north during the Civil War era. They were northerners who supported states rights, specifically the sates' right to leave the union. Regardless of wether they supported slavery or not (some did, some did not), they agreed that states leaving the union was no differnt than wives leaving husbands.

Can you hold a gun to your wife's head and force her to stay? Can you physically beat her into submission with your fists and weapons until she submits? Abraham Lincoln believes you should.

According to to Copperheads, if you support the Civil War, you support spousal abuse, domestic violence, and the most exreme of extreme levels when it comes to white men owning women, blacks, and anyone else who cannot vote.

Copperheads include a wide array of beliefs that did not always see eye-to-eye. Slavery was one thing upon which they passionately disagreed. But the right to peacefully secede was something they agreed upon, and one state's (or nation's) ability to tell another state or nation what to do was something they simply did not possess under basic understandings of soveriegnty.

My family was granted land after an ancester fought in the battle of San Jacinto. I grew up on that land, and that land is still in my family today. It will remain in my family for at least the next 2 generations.

My loyalty is to Texas over the USA. Although many of my ancestors fought & died for the Confederacy, my loyalties have lied with Texas over the Confederacy. I have read through countless documents, diaries, & testements of my ancestors, and it's universally cleear that they all held Texas higherin their hears than the Confederacy or the United States. They were Texans first, period.

When you fast-forward a few generations to present day, that sentement in the et98 and related familial clans has remained unchanged.

The Real Napster said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Is that REALLY how we keep the union together? By force, regardless of the views of states that may not want to be part of the union anymore?

---

Yep. Free country. Isn't it.

The whole southern pride and battle flag starting to make more sense now.

---

Obviously not...

Until we secede, we need to push for a Union of Red States. Then any exports (oil, gas, food, etc.) get taxed out the wazoo. If they don't like it, meet us at a Convention of States and hear our demands.

torrid said:

---

Again, I ask how does a state secede when the major population centers with all the jobs and all money obviously have no desire to do so.

---

That's not the question for this thread. Start your own...

Assume that the state and its citizens want to secede for this exercise...

normaleagle05 said:

---

This is an eye opening thread. The legal framework of political separation has for millennia been based almost entirely on warfare. The idea of independence based on the outcome of court pursuits is pretty novel and then mostly based on the aftermath of victory on the battlefield.

The 2nd amendment wasn't a new concept at the end of the 18th century. It was the codification of the natural order of things that living beings are, and should be, dangerous. The rattlesnake neither seeks nor requires a permit for fangs and venom. Nature allows it.

Millennia of human history are the stories of war victors. Kill the men, rape the women, sell the children as slaves. Right, wrong, or otherwise, that's just how it was done. The idea that the separation of polities in the 21st century should be based on any principle other than military force and violence is ignorant of the history and nature of humans.

If we decide to be politically independent from the rest of this Union, rest assured, it will involve violence.

---

In the latter part of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st we've seen countries obtain independence - essentially secession - without war. So, there are numerous examples.