Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 111

Thread: Can States Succeed From US?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926

    Post imported post


    I was just wondering if there are any states that have the ability that enables them to NOT be part of the federal system?
    I realize each state has its own constitution, and if it was possible for a state to leave the "50" they would not be entitled to Federal funding like highways, SS or the FAA for instance.
    But is it possible?


    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    Legal: Yes.
    Possible: Yes

    Likely to result in some kind of civil war if any state tried though.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    the ninth amendment guarantees:

    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.

    show me in the constitution where secession is prohibited by the constitution.

    in 1861, 11 Southern states ( 13 if you count Kentucky and Missouri, who did in fact secede but their secessions weren't "officially" recognized) exercised this basic human right of self determination, the exact same right excersiced by the founding fathers 85 years previously, and were invaded, subjugated and subjected to a grueling regime of "Reconstruction" for their efforts.

    yes, secession is legal, but try to excersice that right, and you'll find out just how free you really are.

    "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    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 shewn 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."

    ~Declaration of Independence

    Even the tyrant who sought to subjugate the Southern people recognized the legitimacy of their actions:

    Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.

    ~ Abraham Lincoln

    that is all I am going to say on the subject, unless provoked.




  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    Please correct me if I am wrong.... but Texas can legally succeed from the United States. The Republic Of Texas (an soverign independent country at the time) entered into a treaty to join the United States as a state.

    Every year the Texas state legislature must (or is supposed) to vote on renewing this treaty or covenant with the United States.

    In the late seventies and early 80's the Hunt Brothers cornered the market in silver in an attempt to establish an independant bank from the Federal Reserve System. However their efforts were ruthlessly crushed, and the plan of succession (which I believe many people were involved) never borre fruit.

    In theory each state in the Union is a soverign state (an independent country) held together with a common money system, a common defense, common means of communications (roads, ports, etc.) and a judicial system--this is why you have state legislative bodies still.

    A state is not just an area within the United States--it is an independent country. The constituion that was ratified made sure that there were certain basic rights that had to be obeyed in all states entering into this agreement.

    However, the Federal Government has evolved into a system where it belives that anything and everything it does is legal and constitutional. 90% of all laws passed by the congress and senate have absolutely no constitutional basis whatsoever. And the majority of the laws that are passed are rarely challenged, or challenged on a constitutional basis.

    Yes a state may succeed from the Union of the states--the only mistake when it was done the last time, was that the hot-heads in south opened fire on Fort Sumpter and started a war when no such war existed. It gave Lincoln the moral high ground to eventually crush the succesionist (which almost didn't happen).

    Can you imagine it... the Confederate flag being raised over Mt. Surabachi? Or the Confederate Flag planted on the moon? How about General Jimmy Dolittle launching planes off the deck off the CSS Hornet?

    Makes you wonder huh?

    You are not alone... this thought that has been running trough your brain is also coursing though the minds of many, many others lately.

    If Hussein O is elected, and an avalanche of socialist legislation is rammed down the throats of American--this thought will turn into action.

    ST







  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    Takezo wrote:

    A state is not just an area within the United States--it is an independent country. The constituion that was ratified made sure that there were certain basic rights that had to be obeyed in all states entering into this agreement.

    However, the Federal Government has evolved into a system where it belives that anything and everything it does is legal and constitutional. 90% of all laws passed by the congress and senate have absolutely no constitutional basis whatsoever. And the majority of the laws that are passed are rarely challenged, or challenged on a constitutional basis.
    On this point, we agree.


    Takezo wrote:
    Yes a state may succeed from the Union of the states--the only mistake when it was done the last time, was that the hot-heads in south opened fire on Fort Sumpter and started a war when no such war existed. It gave Lincoln the moral high ground to eventually crush the succesionist (which almost didn't happen).


    however, here is where we disagree. The Confederate States of America gave Lincoln every possible avenue for peaceful evacuation of Sumter, as it had for all federally owned Southern land. The CSA didn't fire on Sumter until Lincoln chose to re supply the troops there, which the Confederate Leadership saw as an act of war.






    Takezo wrote:
    Can you imagine it... ?
    I do, quite often. and I smile a little every time.

    the Confederate flag being raised over Mt. Surabachi?

    Or the Confederate Flag planted on the moon



    please note: the images posted are from a movie which depicts an alternate timeline in which the South wins the war. while it provided some quite memorable images such as the ones I posted, it is actually quite anti-Southern, and not even a remotely accurate portrayal. while I won't hijack this thread with an explanation, anyone interested can PM me and I'll be glad to give you a history lesson.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    "Hurray for the bonnie blue flag that bears the stars and bars!"

    I stand slightly corrected....

    Hey where did you find those photos?

    I too smile at the thought.

    God bless General Lee, God bless Jefferson Davis!

    ST

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    95

    Post imported post

    id move to the south if they succeeded


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    Takezo wrote:
    "Hurray for the bonnie blue flag that bears the stars and bars!"

    actually, that line is "hurray for the bonnie blue flag that bears the single star.



    that is one of many misconceptions about the confederate flags.

    the battle flag as a national flag is but another. were those pictures real, the flag would have been the third national, not the CBF.

    the song you quoted is actually written about this flag, which is called the bonnie blue flag:



    a little history on the flag:

    http://flagspot.net/flags/us-csabb.html

    another misinterpetation is that the battle flag is the "stars and bars". That nickname was given to a different confederate flag (the First national flag), due to it's similarity to the Federal flag:



    there are also 2 other Confederate Natinoal flags. the Battle flag was used only by the Confederate Military.


    as for the pics, I just found them here and there online

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    If the Democrats get in, there's no way a state (or even an individual) can succeed.



    Democrat or Republican, the question of whether or not they can secede is another matter entirely, though.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926

    Post imported post

    BB62 wrote:
    If the Democrats get in, there's no way a state (or even an individual) can succeed.



    Democrat or Republican, the question of whether or not they can secede is another matter entirely, though.
    Touche!
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    201

    Post imported post

    Can a state "succeede"? Well, I suppose it could, but at what?

    Oh, secede! I gotcha!

  12. #12
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926

    Post imported post

    savery wrote:
    Can a state "succeede"? Well, I suppose it could, but at what?

    Oh, secede! I gotcha!
    Yeah, for some reason I cant edit the title of a thread. :X
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    Bring back the Articles of Confederation!

  14. #14
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    At the time of ratification, the Virginia delegates had written into the ratifying document a caveat that basically stated that in the event the federal government ever went beyond the bounds of the Constitution and usurped the rights of Virginians, the state reserved the right to rescind ratification and revert to complete sovereignty.

    I know I have the words somewhat wrong here but the essential message is there. I have a copy of this segment of the document in my desk at work.

    Ok, I just found that portion of the text online which appears like a preamble. Here it is.

    We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining Amendments previous to the Ratification, We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following; .
    Done in Convention this twenty Sixth day of June one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight
    By Order of the Convention

    There is a good deal more as well.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    There was a reason the country was called the "United States" of America, rather than something else- "Republic of America" might have been a choice. However, many of the founding father insisted that the country be structured as a loose conglomeration of sovereign states, rather than as a single country that was divided up into various states. The difference can be a bit subtle, but it is a nonetheless, it is a very important difference. The first two political parties were divided pretty much on that distinction. The Federalists wanted a more centralized structure, while the Democratic Republicans were more in favor of the very loosest interpretation, where each state was essentially a country in itself. Because of this, the right to leave the Union was inherent in every state, and still is.

    Now, while it may be legal to secede, whether or not the administration that's in power would allow it is another question entirely. Would it be legal for them to stop it? No, but who's going to stop them?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    "The south will rise again!"

    By far the greatest laugh, I have ever got.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Humor deprived (or is it depraved?).

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Skagit Valley, Washington
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    Thanks for that. When I saw the thread title, I knew someone had to set the record straight on the word and secession.

    According to the Constitution, it is possible for any state or states to secede.
    But as was pointed out, last time that was tried, it ended in a war with more fatalities than any other in US history.
    Too bad, too. Secession makes a great wake-up call to an unresponsive federacy.


    BB62 wrote:
    If the Democrats get in, there's no way a state (or even an individual) can succeed.



    Democrat or Republican, the question of whether or not they can secede is another matter entirely, though.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    Sig229 wrote:
    savery wrote:
    Can a state "succeede"? Well, I suppose it could, but at what?

    Oh, secede! I gotcha!
    Yeah, for some reason I cant edit the title of a thread. :X
    I've never tried, but I think I've seen posts fromMike that say that the thread starter can do so.

    Heck, give it a try!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    At the time of ratification, the Virginia delegates had written into the ratifying document a caveat that basically stated that in the event the federal government ever went beyond the bounds of the Constitution and usurped the rights of Virginians, the state reserved the right to rescind ratification and revert to complete sovereignty.

    I know I have the words somewhat wrong here but the essential message is there. I have a copy of this segment of the document in my desk at work.

    Ok, I just found that portion of the text online which appears like a preamble. Here it is.

    We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:



    Virginia wasn't the only state to add that particular caveat in their retification documents

    Rhode Island added this clause into theirs:
    3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
    style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratri.htm

    style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"New York:
    That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness
    style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/ratny.htm

    style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8"These ratification documents are available online here:

    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/18th.htm

    as well as the ratificaion documents of the other states.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    I thought this question was settled 143 years ago. As I recall, we won the argument.

    Gunslinger, Yankee born and bred.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    I thought this question was settled 143 years ago. As I recall, we won the argument.

    Gunslinger, Yankee born and bred.


    "A question settled by violence, or in disregard of law, must remain unsettled forever."
    --- President Jefferson Davis, CSA

    Unreconstructed1, Unreconstructed, Unapologetic, Unrepentant Southerner

  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    n/t

  24. #24
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    impulse418 wrote:
    "The south will rise again!"

    By far the greatest laugh, I have ever got.
    We already have in one area. The South is the wealthiest region in the United States. Were the fifteen Southern states a separate country, they would rank third in economic wealth, behind the United States as a whole, and Japan.

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    SouthernBoy wrote:
    impulse418 wrote:
    "The south will rise again!"

    By far the greatest laugh, I have ever got.
    We already have in one area. The South is the wealthiest region in the United States. Were the fifteen Southern states a separate country, they would rank third in economic wealth, behind the United States as a whole, and Japan.
    I saw the same statistics elsewhere .

    In the book "The Southern Nation: the new rise of the Old South", it lists that as of 1990, that the South (whether the South as defined by the census beaureau, Congressional quarterly, or as the historical 11 sate Confedaracy) would have ranked second, behind the U.S. in terms of the GDP. I haven't seen any newer date than that. Could you give me a source on that?

    Another point is whether that takes into account the loss of revenue resulting from a loss of Southern assets. I wonder if we'd still rank behind the U.S., or above it.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •