Can a state break away from the Union and declare independence?

[zeruty]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: zeruty
Basically... this is one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. If a statewide militia were able to fend off the US military, that is one way for it to happen.

That doesn't make any sense. The 2nd Amendment is part of the United States Constitution, it's purpose is the defense of the Union, not insurrection against itself.

Don't forget that the bill of rights are primarily for the people. The constitution is a guarantee to the people. The 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to self-defense. If the citizenry of a state wish to break free, and the US government wishes to stop them, the 2nd amendment enables the people to defend themself.
The 2nd amendment is not about defending the union. In fact, the BIGGEST purpose for the 2nd amendment is to enable the people to overthrow the US government if the need arises.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

 

[Unheard]

Peter Griffin did it, and here was the result.

 

[oogabooga]

I hope the OP isn't a high school student in the US since most this is something they should know...

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: oogabooga
I hope the OP isn't a high school student in the US since most this is something they should know...

The problem is that in high school the question gets overwhelmed by the discussion of slavery and the Civil War and is never addressed in its own right.

 

[BigDH01]

I believe that Abe Lincoln set the precedent during the Civil War that states would not be allowed to leave the union peacefully. At his inauguration, Lincoln stated that he would not accept secession. However, the first shots were actually fired by the South on Fort Sumter, which was later surrendered to South Carolina. Now, Lincoln had said that we didn't want war with the South and the commander of Fort Sumter had said that he would surrender peacefully to the South after his supplies ran out, but the South thought it was a trick. There is a possibility that there would not have been a war if it were not for the attack on Fort Sumter, but this is unlikely. Regardless, it is known that Lincoln wasn't going to accept secession, and if diplomacy would not work it seems that he would've had little choice but to unify the Union with force.

In short, although the Civil War freed the slaves, it also meant that no state would be able to leave the Union peacefully. The US now has a precedent that it will re-unify the state militarily, if necessary.

 

[SSSnail]

There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguable one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

I'll venture a wild guess...you live in CA?

 

[Nerva]

know the house divided speech?

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: oogabooga
I hope the OP isn't a high school student in the US since most this is something they should know...

The problem is that in high school the question gets overwhelmed by the discussion of slavery and the Civil War and is never addressed in its own right.

Yeah, I always found it funny that slavery is the first thing mentioned when discussing the justification for the Civil War. Lincoln had actually said originally that we would not outlaw slavery in states where it already existed but he would not allow secession. The war originally had far more to do with those states trying to leave the Union than it did with slavery. It was only later in the war where the focus begins to shift.

Granted, the southern states wouldn't have been in such a position (secession) if slavery didn't exist, but the slavery issue wasn't as important to citizens at the time as we make it out to be today. At the beginning of the war, state rights was the more pressing issue.

Think of the Iraq war. If you ask a person now why we're in Iraq, they'll likely say it is to provide the Iraqis with freedom. It is easy to forget that the war was originally justified because Iraq had (maybe???) WMDs. I imagine this is similar to what happened during the Civil War.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

I've seen this argument a lot, but I've never had anyone give me the stats on food. Is California a net importer or exporter of food? I really don't know the answer, just wondering if anyone does.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Unheard
Peter Griffin did it, and here was the result.

juh....juh....just like lethal weapon 2....cant touch me....cause i got diplomatic immunity

 

[musha shugyo]

Look up Texas v. White.

 

[herkulease]

No. the Supreme Court ruled in unconstitutional.

As for you hypothetical, only situation i can think of is that the federal government somehow completely falls apart. the United States of America no longer exists. Only then can Texas or California become its own nation.

 

[EKKC]

Confederate money looked stupid anyway

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

I've seen this argument a lot, but I've never had anyone give me the stats on food. Is California a net importer or exporter of food? I really don't know the answer, just wondering if anyone does.

They also import a lot of their water, I believe.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

I've seen this argument a lot, but I've never had anyone give me the stats on food. Is California a net importer or exporter of food? I really don't know the answer, just wondering if anyone does.

They also import a lot of their water, I believe.

And electricity too, right?

 

[EKKC]

i doubt a lot of the military personnel stationed in California are Californians.

 

[jjones]

They can try but they wouldn't be allowed to go through with it, so in the end, no.

 

[snoopdoug1]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

Aren't most of the troops in Cali part of the Navy/Marines? If so - those aren't california troops, they're the federal govt's troops.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: SSSnail
There are a lot of good arguments, but the break from the Union doesn't necessarily has to be violent. As Yllus pointed out, it could be due to a situation where the government was unable to resolve, and the state decide that it would be better off on its own.

Speaking of California, I don't see why it can't be an independent nation. It is arguably one of the largest economy in the world, can stay alive on its own power, and it may has possibly the second highest military concentration in the nation. If everything was to break away as it is, I think California can and will be well on her own.

I've seen this argument a lot, but I've never had anyone give me the stats on food. Is California a net importer or exporter of food? I really don't know the answer, just wondering if anyone does.

They also import a lot of their water, I believe.

Dont forget they are an importer of power as well.

Texas is the only state that can feasibly survive on its own. Its right behind CA in terms of economy, but it has its own water supply, power supply(Texas is on its own grid), and food supply(TX is #2 in ag). It also has the majority of chemical processing plants and IRCC 80% of the fertilizer plants in the US. It also has close to half of the oil refineries in the US. In addition to that, its the worlds leading supplier of mohair, and one of the leading suppliers of cotton and oil/natural gas in the US.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: dainthomas
North Dakota lost their chance when they were the world's third largest nuclear power.

true

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Last time we in Virginia tried it we lost about 1/3 of our territory.

You didn't lose much, though. West Virginia is pretty much worthless unless you're in to moonshine or coal mining.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
In which scenario can a state such as California or Texas break away from the Union? These states are large enough and are economically independent, and could potentially become nations. Hypothetically, under what circumstances will this happen?

Since we could gain new territories and add to the Union, can the reverse be true?

No, can't secede.
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: zeruty
Basically... this is one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. If a statewide militia were able to fend off the US military, that is one way for it to happen.

That doesn't make any sense. The 2nd Amendment is part of the United States Constitution, it's purpose is the defense of the Union, not insurrection against itself.

actually, that's one of the justifications behind the second amendment. it's supposed to be a check against the government's power, that if the government got too powerful and corrupt, the people are supposed to rise up and replace it.

i dont have the exact quote on me, but there is one i know of at least from Thomas Jefferson that (paraphrased) says exactly that.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

There ya go.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Hypothetically, under what circumstances will this happen?

The same circumstances as what caused the first Civil War: Having their economic and social goals shut out at the federal level to the point where it becomes more advantageous to go at it alone than stick with the union.

In real-world terms, the single leading concern I'd see for the U.S. in which the above could occur would be the abolition of the electoral college system. You go to the majority vote system when voting for a President, and the dominance of a few states over the rest will quickly have the situation degenerate.

we've already got it that way, the competitive states are dominant, rather than merely the big ones.