Should states be allowed to leave the USA?

[°Leprechaun]

Well legally no:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

However, the USA seceded from Great Britain and that would logically be no different.

[Jacobtm]

The real problem here is that, when there is a conflict with a government, the ultimate question is military might.

The U.S. says that states don't have a right to secede, and will use military force to prevent it. If the south would have won the war, then they would have been able to establish their own country. But militarily they couldn't, and we kept them in the fold.

Your "right" to do anything is dependent on your ability to enforce your decision.

---

Do you have a "right" to live in your house?

What if people with weapons come and take you out by force?

Well you call the cops, but what if the people who took your force are stronger than the cops and keep your house?

You had an agreement with the cops to protect you, but if you failed, well, your "right" is a meaningless social agreement that didn't work out for you. Your "right" to your property is null and void if someone with superior force decides to take it

---

So states will not be allowed to peacefully secede. If a state could somehow stand up to the entire U.S. military, it could do it, but that seems very unlikely.

I would prefer it if the U.S. could peacefully let states secede if they so wished, but it seems very unlikely.

[Badger]

The real problem here is that, when there is a conflict with a government, the ultimate question is military might.

The U.S. says that states don't have a right to secede, and will use military force to prevent it. If the south would have won the war, then they would have been able to establish their own country. But militarily they couldn't, and we kept them in the fold.

Your "right" to do anything is dependent on your ability to enforce your decision.

---

Do you have a "right" to live in your house?

What if people with weapons come and take you out by force?

Well you call the cops, but what if the people who took your force are stronger than the cops and keep your house?

You had an agreement with the cops to protect you, but if you failed, well, your "right" is a meaningless social agreement that didn't work out for you. Your "right" to your property is null and void if someone with superior force decides to take it

---

So states will not be allowed to peacefully secede. If a state could somehow stand up to the entire U.S. military, it could do it, but that seems very unlikely.

I would prefer it if the U.S. could peacefully let states secede if they so wished, but it seems very unlikely.

It's sad that people like you so hate the USA.

Being a patriot, I'm glad we fought and won against such un-American treasonous ideals 150 years ago.

Mind, you could take a personal step towards your dream by emigrating. Preferably soon. To a place without internet connection.

[SNJ1985]

I would prefer it if the U.S. could peacefully let states secede if they so wished, but it seems very unlikely.

[Mehmentum]

If a person wants to leave the United States, that is entirely their right.  States do not have that right.

This is inherent in the nature of our union.  The United States isn't a confederation.  Its not a bunch of independent governments agreeing to work together like EU is.  Perhaps in the beginning it was, but those days are long gone.

This is confirmed by public opinion.  How many people today are more loyal to their home state the the United States?  Vanishingly few, I'd wager.  People move from state to state without batting an eye.

If some secession movement did emerge, I'll guarantee you that support for succession will have nothing to do with the state trying to secede.  Rather, it would be people opposing the federal government by attempting to use the sate government as a convenient vehicle to push their agenda.

So again, no individual rights are being infringed upon here.  If someone wants to leave the U.S, they are completely free to do so.  A government institution should not be free to sever itself from other parts of the government.

[Citizen Hats]

So long as a state isn't attempting to strip it's citizens of the equal protection of the laws in the process i'm not really bothered in principle

[Blue3]

It could probably happen if it was approved by an act of Congress.

[Clark Kent]

Not under any circumstances. Secession is treason. The Union FOREVER.

[Zioneer]

It could probably happen if it was approved by an act of Congress.

[Crumpets]

I think if you got an amendment to the Constitution (37 states supporting a 38th state's secession from the Union) you could do it peacefully and legally. Not that that's ever going to happen.

[angus]

no.

[pho]

Not under any circumstances. Secession is treason. The Union FOREVER.

[politicus]

no.

Not even Hawaii? Old monarchy toppled by a coup by white supremacists. Would have been a Polynesian nation state otherwise.

I think Hawaii and Texas should be allowed to secede if they chose. Both are formerly independent countries.

[Jacobtm]

How do you all feel about Kosovo leaving Serbia, or Tibet leaving China?

The general issue of a region of a country wanting to secede, are you OK with it?

If so, why the exception for our country?

[Blue3]

no.

Not even Hawaii? Old monarchy toppled by a coup by white supremacists. Would have been a Polynesian nation state otherwise.

I think Hawaii and Texas should be allowed to secede if they chose. Both are formerly independent countries.

The entire US was once owned by formerly-independent Native American nations.

[politicus]

no.

Not even Hawaii? Old monarchy toppled by a coup by white supremacists. Would have been a Polynesian nation state otherwise.

I think Hawaii and Texas should be allowed to secede if they chose. Both are formerly independent countries.

The entire US was once owned by formerly-independent Native American nations.

True, but the current US states are not a continuation of those, whereas Hawaii and Texas occupy the same territory and can be seen as successor states to previously independent countries.

[sparkey]

The difference between the American Revolution and something like an ordinance of secession is that the American Revolution made no pretense of working within the laws of its mother country. The Patriots knew quite well that declaring independence would not be allowed. So "should states be allowed to leave the USA?" doesn't have much to do with the fact that "the USA seceded from Great Britain." It's not philosophically inconsistent to have a revolution that establishes a union that cannot be dissolved through legal means.

Personally, though, I think there are extreme circumstances under which a state may be allowed to leave the Union, but it should probably require a supermajority of popular support to ensure that any such vote isn't a temporary phase, and things like lack of turnout or voting irregularities don't determine the outcome. For what it's worth, I don't think that the Confederacy met these requirements (they didn't even ask their black residents!).

[Figueira]

The real problem here is that, when there is a conflict with a government, the ultimate question is military might.

In practice, the question would be whether the secessionists actually want to go to war over this, and unless there is something seriously bad going on, the answer will be "no."

However, I would personally be in favor of allowing Scottish-type independence referendums in US states. How I would vote in such a referendum depends on the circumstances.

[Clark Kent]

Unless the people in the region wanting secession are being oppressed or massacred more than people in the rest of the country, secession should not be tolerated.

The Revolutionary War was different because the Thirteen Colonies weren't part of Britain. They were colonies, and had every right to independence.

[Jacobtm]

Unless the people in the region wanting secession are being oppressed or massacred more than people in the rest of the country, secession should not be tolerated.

The Revolutionary War was different because the Thirteen Colonies weren't part of Britain. They were colonies, and had every right to independence.

This is just the winners writing the history.

Had Britain won they'd have just said "The Thirteen Colonies were Colonies of the Crown and thus had no right to independence, as such their treasonous rebellion was put down."

You have a "right to independence" if you can enforce it, or you have someone else who will enforce it on your behalf.

Russia has helped ensure several small breakaway Republics in the Ex-Soviet sphere have de-facto independence even though the West does not recognize that "right".

[Marokai Backbeat]

Obviously they don't have that right, that's not really arguable. I do think states should be able to hold a referendum on seceding if they choose, though, and the results should probably be respected.

[Clark Kent]

Unless the people in the region wanting secession are being oppressed or massacred more than people in the rest of the country, secession should not be tolerated.

The Revolutionary War was different because the Thirteen Colonies weren't part of Britain. They were colonies, and had every right to independence.

This is just the winners writing the history.

Had Britain won they'd have just said "The Thirteen Colonies were Colonies of the Crown and thus had no right to independence, as such their treasonous rebellion was put down."

You have a "right to independence" if you can enforce it, or you have someone else who will enforce it on your behalf.

Russia has helped ensure several small breakaway Republics in the Ex-Soviet sphere have de-facto independence even though the West does not recognize that "right".

Well, I also believe that Tibet belongs in China (but oppose the Chinese government) and probably would've opposed the Soviet Union breaking up (except the Balkans) if it gave up communism. I oppose secession in general.

[PJ]

Unless the people in the region wanting secession are being oppressed or massacred more than people in the rest of the country, secession should not be tolerated.

The Revolutionary War was different because the Thirteen Colonies weren't part of Britain. They were colonies, and had every right to independence.

This is just the winners writing the history.

Had Britain won they'd have just said "The Thirteen Colonies were Colonies of the Crown and thus had no right to independence, as such their treasonous rebellion was put down."

You have a "right to independence" if you can enforce it, or you have someone else who will enforce it on your behalf.

Russia has helped ensure several small breakaway Republics in the Ex-Soviet sphere have de-facto independence even though the West does not recognize that "right".

Well, I also believe that Tibet belongs in China (but oppose the Chinese government) and probably would've opposed the Soviet Union breaking up (except the Balkans) if it gave up communism. I oppose secession in general.

I know you like to pride yourself as the "YANKEE REPUBLICAN" or whatever, but this is ridiculous. One is not 'pro' or 'anti' secession as a general rule.

[Clark Kent]

Unless the people in the region wanting secession are being oppressed or massacred more than people in the rest of the country, secession should not be tolerated.

The Revolutionary War was different because the Thirteen Colonies weren't part of Britain. They were colonies, and had every right to independence.

This is just the winners writing the history.

Had Britain won they'd have just said "The Thirteen Colonies were Colonies of the Crown and thus had no right to independence, as such their treasonous rebellion was put down."

You have a "right to independence" if you can enforce it, or you have someone else who will enforce it on your behalf.

Russia has helped ensure several small breakaway Republics in the Ex-Soviet sphere have de-facto independence even though the West does not recognize that "right".

Well, I also believe that Tibet belongs in China (but oppose the Chinese government) and probably would've opposed the Soviet Union breaking up (except the Balkans) if it gave up communism. I oppose secession in general.

I know you like to pride yourself as the "YANKEE REPUBLICAN" or whatever, but this is ridiculous. One is not 'pro' or 'anti' secession as a general rule.

Why not? If I start making exceptions, then I'd have to start applying those same rules to myself.

[°Leprechaun]

Of course I don't think any of this applies to Puerto Rico. Or does it? Although not a state, they are US citizens. If they ever become a state, then it would be harder for them to leave, unless given an exemption on becoming a state and I doubt that that has been discussed, but I could be wrong.