Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey guys,

Asking this because of a conversation I was having with a friend about the Falkland Islanders... Since my argument hinged on the idea of self-determination, he tried to pull out the Confederacy as an argument against the idea; saying that such ideals shouldn't be held too highly... He asked if I would support the Confederacy.

I said that whilst I don't condone the morality of slavery, I feel that the issue is too highly emphasised in historiography and that legitimate questions regarding the right for secession are suppressed. At any rate, that particular discussion belongs in another thread.

I'm not going to assert much in the way of genuine knowledge; this is a question that hopes to gain insights on my part, rather than provide them... but it seems to me that since the Constitution states 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'

Do states have the right to secede? On what basis was the Supreme Court able to declare secession illegal? It seems to me that, as a union of states, the United States is a federation and that, as its constituent parts are sovereign states, they should always have the right to withdraw if it is within their own interests to do so... hopefully as the result of a referendum or the like.

Thoughts?

Easy answer as the case was already tried.

The Case of Lee vs. Grant (1865 SCOTUS writ denied) settled once and for all that states may not secede from the Union.

Frazzled wrote:Lee vs. Grant (1965 SCOTUS writ denied)

...so much wrong with this.

My inner bluebook cringes.

Do you have an opinion on the matter, biccat?

Although the argument might be fun from a philosophical PoV, I do want to know the legal side as well... and that doesn't so easily warrant individuals such as myself making unqualified statements.

Henners91 wrote:Do you have an opinion on the matter, biccat?

Yes, it should be:

Lee v. Grant (1865 cert denied).

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Lee vs. Grant (1965 SCOTUS writ denied)

...so much wrong with this.

My inner bluebook cringes.

You're right. 1865. I get my centuries mixed up. Easy to do when you've been around this long.
I think an aspirant researcher will note the case was brought in many jurisdictions from Galveston to the Appomatox Courthouse, with even a sattelite office in the Atlantic hearing the matter. Initially the secessionists' counterarguments had merit, but upon further review in appellate decisions at Vicksburg, Antietam, Gettysberg, Richmond, and finally the aforementioned easy decision at Appomattox, federal arguments were found to be utterly persuasive. Several Legal Eagles including Grant, Sheridan, and Sherman were particularly adept at countering the secessionists' legal argument.

What about a 'right to revolution'... Americans seem pretty big on that idea.

I mean, ultimately the very nation's birth emanates from a secession that had to be defended with force of arms. Government relies on the consent of the governed, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though now I think about it, the notion of a right to revolution seems a bit silly as, to me at least, 'rights' imply things that you should not be punished for exercising... if one has a 'right to revolution', does that mean that you shouldn't be punished by your government if an armed rebellion against it fails?

Henners91 wrote:What about a 'right to revolution'... Americans seem pretty big on that idea.

I mean, ultimately the very nation's birth emanates from a secession that had to be defended with force of arms. Government relies on the consent of the governed, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though now I think about it, the notion of a right to revolution seems a bit silly as, to me at least, 'rights' imply things that you should not be punished for exercising... if one has a 'right to revolution', does that mean that you shouldn't be punished by your government if an armed rebellion against it fails?

There is no right to revolution. You only get that right after you win.

The founding fathers never considered that a state would want to succeed. Well, the Federalists at least didn't consider it.

Ideally, succession should not be allowed, as it means a state could back out of the Union when the going gets rough to the detriment of the others, or threaten the others with succession to extort them. The federal system cannot function if succession is a state held power, which is what Lincoln and the United States in 1860-1865 was fighting against. State's cannot just leave the Union because something happened and they didn't like it.

I'm amazed that Europe has held together throughout this crisis...

I am not an economist, but does sharing a currency that is centrally administered help bind Unions together or is it an easy matter to just swap a currency?

Henners91 wrote:What about a 'right to revolution'... Americans seem pretty big on that idea.

I think individuals have a natural right to self-determination, which might mean a natural right to secede from a government.

I also think that governments have the right to prevent secession when it is in their interest to do so.

This means that governments infringe on freedom, which is what governments were created to do.

Henners91 wrote:I'm amazed that Europe has held together throughout this crisis...

I am not an economist, but does sharing a currency that is centrally administered help bind Unions together or is it an easy matter to just swap a currency?

You think its holding together? We'll see...

Frazzled wrote: There is no right to revolution. You only get that right after you win.

That's it in a nutshell.

To go all R.A. Heinlein: You only have a right to freedom if you are willing to spend your blood, nobody has any given rights.

biccat wrote:
I think individuals have a natural right to self-determination, which might mean a natural right to secede from a government.

I also think that governments have the right to prevent secession when it is in their interest to do so.

This means that governments infringe on freedom, which is what governments were created to do.

You can't grant individuals the right to self-determination, and the government the right to limit self-determination, and have both be rights in any meaningful sense.

You have the ability to determine yourself, and the government has the ability to prevent you from doing so, where equilibrium is achieved will depend on the person and on the state. Who has the right never comes into it.

LordofHats wrote:The founding fathers never considered that a state would want to succeed. Well, the Federalists at least didn't consider it.

That's not exactly true. The general sentiment (from Madison, at least) was be pro-revolution, but anti-secession.

States were very independent prior to the Civil War. The Federal Government had quite a limited role in the early days. After the Civil War, states' liberties were quickly eroded.

No, there is no legal way to leave the Union, that would be silly. If a state wanted to leave the union, it just does.

The War of Northern Agression as it is properly known was started because South Carolina wanted to secede from the union. This right was written into the constitution to please some of the late arrivals to the new government New York and Virginia. These state had a lot of power and did not want to have to share equal rights with less powerful states. The proviso that allowed for secession was there for their happiness.

However as Frazzled stated History is written by the Victors.

Funny note Texas used to be its own country.

Only in America is it regarded as an issue worthy of debate.
If you can seceed from a nation state then it's fething pointless having one in the first place.
Hey i don't want to pay taxes, I'll secede.
My neighbour doesn't want to pay taxes, he'll secede as well.
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

captain collius wrote:The War of Northern Agression as it is properly known was started because South Carolina wanted to secede from the union. This right was written into the constitution to please some of the late arrivals to the new government New York and Virginia. These state had a lot of power and did not want to have to share equal rights with less powerful states. The proviso that allowed for secession was there for their happiness.

However as Frazzled stated History is written by the Victors.

Funny note Texas used to be its own country.

Used to be? You misperceive. We still are. We just allowed the other states to join us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:Only in America is it regarded as an issue worthy of debate.
If you can seceed from a nation state then it's fething pointless having one in the first place.
Hey i don't want to pay taxes, I'll secede.
My neighbour doesn't want to pay taxes, he'll secede as well.
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Dude note the flag on the OP. It was brought up by one of YOU PEOPLE.

Isn't there some sort of clause that makes Texas legally able to leave the union?

Joey wrote:Only in America is it regarded as an issue worthy of debate.
If you can seceed from a nation state then it's fething pointless having one in the first place.
Hey i don't want to pay taxes, I'll secede.
My neighbour doesn't want to pay taxes, he'll secede as well.
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

You're calling it irrelevant when Scottish secession by referendum is a very real possibility?

It applies just as much here as over there.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Isn't there some sort of clause that makes Texas legally able to leave the union?

Yes. We just choose not too, else the Union, weighed down by California will flip over. After all, if Guam could tip over, whats keeping the US from tipping over?

Joey wrote:Only in America is it regarded as an issue worthy of debate.
If you can seceed from a nation state then it's fething pointless having one in the first place.

Because Scotland is not trying to gain independence from the UK.

Edit: Henners got there first!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Yes. We just choose not too, else the Union, weighed down by California will flip over. After all, if Guam could tip over, whats keeping the US from tipping over?

I believe all the hot air being produced in DC is keeping us buoyant

Good point Elrabin. Thats why we elected them!

Henners91 wrote:What about a 'right to revolution'... Americans seem pretty big on that idea.

There is not so much a right to revolution as the rights granted by the bill of rights provide the mechanism FOR a revolution. Like happiness it's yours to pursue. At heart our founders were not revolutionaries like the French, they wanted stability. The had also just finished fighting a revolution so they provided the ability to speak, assemble, and arm in addition to their accustomed rights as Crown citizens to due process, trial by jury, etc.

HonorHarrington wrote:At heart our founders were not revolutionaries like the French, they wanted stability. The had also just finished fighting a revolution so they provided the ability to speak, assemble, and arm in addition to their accustomed rights as Crown citizens to due process, trial by jury, etc.

The first amendment only restricted what Congress could do. States were free to infringe on free speech (and they did). It wasn't until 1925 (Gitlow v New York) that the Supreme Court held that the first amendment also extends to States.

Frazzled wrote:

Henners91 wrote:What about a 'right to revolution'... Americans seem pretty big on that idea.

I mean, ultimately the very nation's birth emanates from a secession that had to be defended with force of arms. Government relies on the consent of the governed, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though now I think about it, the notion of a right to revolution seems a bit silly as, to me at least, 'rights' imply things that you should not be punished for exercising... if one has a 'right to revolution', does that mean that you shouldn't be punished by your government if an armed rebellion against it fails?

There is no right to revolution. You only get that right after you win.

Exactly.

Frazzled wrote:Good point Elrabin. Thats why we elected them!

Why do you think we make all the politician go home for the summer. It's hot and humid enough already.

I think it actually is true texas had/or has an option to secede. However seeing as they are either the 2nd or 3rd most powerful state I don't think they will. Mainly because it would ruin American Football Season.

True that. You don't screw with football.