vermont secession movement
June 6, 2007 8:16 AM Subscribe
13% of Vermont wants to secede, up from 8% last year. Here is their manifesto. Also Texas, Alaska, South Carolina, Hawaii.
contrast that with 98% of Vermont that wants Texas to secede
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:24 AM on June 6, 2007 [9 favorites]
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:24 AM on June 6, 2007 [9 favorites]
Growing up in Texas, we were told in our Texas History class that the state constitution had a provision for secession. I never looked into it because I was in seventh grade and other things seemed oh so much more important.
Like not getting clobbered by Mike Greenwood or Brian Batterhaus.
Alas, apparently not.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 8:24 AM on June 6, 2007
Like not getting clobbered by Mike Greenwood or Brian Batterhaus.
Alas, apparently not.
posted by YoBananaBoy at 8:24 AM on June 6, 2007
I am, however, all for Cascadia!
Except for that flag. What stoner came up with that dreadful thing?
posted by YoBananaBoy at 8:28 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
Except for that flag. What stoner came up with that dreadful thing?
posted by YoBananaBoy at 8:28 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
South Carolina really ought to know better. I'd have to dig for the figures to support this, but I think it went from being per-capita (slaves not included, natch) one of the wealthiest antebellum states to one of the poorest during Reconstruction.
posted by pax digita at 8:30 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by pax digita at 8:30 AM on June 6, 2007
Proposals to secede from the U.S., by state (incomplete list-- no HI). It's fascinating how many recent dates are on the list as you scroll down.
Also, the South Carolina link above has an extra http://www in it.
posted by Tehanu at 8:32 AM on June 6, 2007
Also, the South Carolina link above has an extra http://www in it.
posted by Tehanu at 8:32 AM on June 6, 2007
Can the rest of the country secede from Texas?
posted by delmoi at 8:34 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by delmoi at 8:34 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
I've been in favor of Louisiana seceding for a little while now. Maybe defecting to another country.
posted by brundlefly at 8:34 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by brundlefly at 8:34 AM on June 6, 2007
I want Vermont to succeed too.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:36 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:36 AM on June 6, 2007
I'd say Hawaii has the best justification. There has been secession movement there for quite awhile.
A few years back some people in the very North of MN made mock secession noises over fishing concerns
kind of an interesting related wiki article
posted by edgeways at 8:39 AM on June 6, 2007
A few years back some people in the very North of MN made mock secession noises over fishing concerns
kind of an interesting related wiki article
posted by edgeways at 8:39 AM on June 6, 2007
Jefferson -- a little bit of California, a little bit of Oregon.
posted by eddydamascene at 8:41 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by eddydamascene at 8:41 AM on June 6, 2007
I'd say Hawaii has the best justification. There has been secession movement there for quite awhile.
Really? Wow. I had no idea. Lots of reading to do.
Great post, MNDZ.
posted by dreamsign at 8:45 AM on June 6, 2007
Really? Wow. I had no idea. Lots of reading to do.
Great post, MNDZ.
posted by dreamsign at 8:45 AM on June 6, 2007
This is a really mixed bag in Vermont. The secessionists have ties to weird white pride/racist groups and as much as I like their ideas and sort of feel good "we can do it" message, the people on their board really consort with people that make the whole thing seem... tainted.
posted by jessamyn at 8:45 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by jessamyn at 8:45 AM on June 6, 2007
One thing that's fun for me about Vermont is that up here, I am not a left-wing loonie, like I was before I got here (compared with my neighbors). I'm now kind of middle-of-the-road. Vermont Commons is a little too far left for my taste, although they have much I agree with.
Secession has an appeal, but I don't really think it would be a good thing for VT overall. I can't see the benefit.
Killington is also threatening to secede from VT to NH, by the way. It would be an interesting mess if every town chose differently.
posted by MtDewd at 8:49 AM on June 6, 2007
Secession has an appeal, but I don't really think it would be a good thing for VT overall. I can't see the benefit.
Killington is also threatening to secede from VT to NH, by the way. It would be an interesting mess if every town chose differently.
posted by MtDewd at 8:49 AM on June 6, 2007
I think California should secede since I don't belive it actually exists anyway.
posted by jonmc at 8:49 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by jonmc at 8:49 AM on June 6, 2007
My left knee succeeded from me last year. Then the other one started making demands. Pretty soon one of my kidneys wanted special rights. I had to do something drastic. Luckily my penis and testicles have been with me 100%. As have my right hand. The left bears watching.
After a month of debate and compromises the rest of the body reached an awkward consensus and so we were forced to launch a rather repressive campaign against me left knee.
Weeks of torture. Not very pretty stuff.
However I can no proudly say the we are a proud and strong single functioning ofjan;flksvandfbv;.s,m/g;lmbh s;lkmdf d m xx...
gOdDanmned it LeFt aHnd!!
posted by tkchrist at 8:50 AM on June 6, 2007 [4 favorites]
After a month of debate and compromises the rest of the body reached an awkward consensus and so we were forced to launch a rather repressive campaign against me left knee.
Weeks of torture. Not very pretty stuff.
However I can no proudly say the we are a proud and strong single functioning ofjan;flksvandfbv;.s,m/g;lmbh s;lkmdf d m xx...
gOdDanmned it LeFt aHnd!!
posted by tkchrist at 8:50 AM on June 6, 2007 [4 favorites]
Didn't we fight a war back in the 1860's to settle this question? Being part of the USA is like being in the mafia; Once you're in, there's no getting out.
posted by Gamblor at 8:52 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Gamblor at 8:52 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
ecotopia, a book by Ernest Callenbach, is an interesting alternate future where California, Oregon and Washington succeed from the rest of the country and form a more progressive union.
posted by Dave Faris at 8:53 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by Dave Faris at 8:53 AM on June 6, 2007
I don't think SC secession would get very far, what with both Fort Jackson and Parris Island here (not to mention the Charleston, McEntire and Shaw Air Force bases) and given the troubles we had trying to take over one measly island fort all those years ago. But hey, tilting at windmills is a popular pastime here so if it keeps them from doing actually harmful things, more power to them.
"South Carolina, too small to be a republic, and too large to be an insane asylum," - James Petigru
posted by 1f2frfbf at 8:54 AM on June 6, 2007
"South Carolina, too small to be a republic, and too large to be an insane asylum," - James Petigru
posted by 1f2frfbf at 8:54 AM on June 6, 2007
Ecotopia now!
posted by Wonderwoman at 8:56 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by Wonderwoman at 8:56 AM on June 6, 2007
Bring back the City State model.
Why stop there? Every man a king, every yard a kingdom, every child and dog a serf!
posted by Gamblor at 8:57 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
Why stop there? Every man a king, every yard a kingdom, every child and dog a serf!
posted by Gamblor at 8:57 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
I just gotta say that after decades of worry about Quebec, and those dastardly manifest destiny types eyeing the expected pieces of a broken Canada, the tables have finally turned!
*leers at North Dakota*
posted by dreamsign at 9:01 AM on June 6, 2007
*leers at North Dakota*
posted by dreamsign at 9:01 AM on June 6, 2007
Anyone who thinks Texas can make it as a republic was not paying attention during the last session of the Legislature.
(And, if the west coast does secede, do you think you could maybe bring Austin with you? We'd fit right in.)
posted by djlynch at 9:03 AM on June 6, 2007
(And, if the west coast does secede, do you think you could maybe bring Austin with you? We'd fit right in.)
posted by djlynch at 9:03 AM on June 6, 2007
Ehh don't have Texas secede, it'll just go to their heads. Demote them to a territory!
posted by furiousthought at 9:10 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by furiousthought at 9:10 AM on June 6, 2007
From Tehanu's link:
"In the 1950s, Letcher County, Kentucky, threatened to secede from the state, demanding better roads in the area. The threats subsided when Governor A.B. Chandler indicated that he did not care."
I had never heard of this, and wikipedia isn't giving a source, but it would certainly have been in character for Happy Chandler.
We should sell Texas back to Mexico. "Maybe a buy Texas, get Florida free" offer if they hesitate on the deal.
posted by dilettante at 9:14 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
"In the 1950s, Letcher County, Kentucky, threatened to secede from the state, demanding better roads in the area. The threats subsided when Governor A.B. Chandler indicated that he did not care."
I had never heard of this, and wikipedia isn't giving a source, but it would certainly have been in character for Happy Chandler.
We should sell Texas back to Mexico. "Maybe a buy Texas, get Florida free" offer if they hesitate on the deal.
posted by dilettante at 9:14 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
Considering the warmongering of the last two US Presidents from Texas, (LBJ & GWB), if they seceded, the first thing they'd do is declare war on the rest of us.
I know, I know, Dubya only pretends to be from there.
posted by Dave Faris at 9:15 AM on June 6, 2007
I know, I know, Dubya only pretends to be from there.
posted by Dave Faris at 9:15 AM on June 6, 2007
Iowa and North Dakota could have seceded years ago and I don't think that most of us would have noticed unless it was a particularly slow news day.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:22 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:22 AM on June 6, 2007
That Texas link is scary. "must prove that you are a blessing to the state" or somesuch to become a citizen. And they mention how much Texas pays out in taxes to the US - does anyone have a link to that study showing how much each state's citizens paid in taxes vs how much in benefits the states received from the feds?
posted by notsnot at 9:24 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by notsnot at 9:24 AM on June 6, 2007
We already have a emperor President who decided the empire country is too large to govern effectively alone and has a co-emperor co-President in Cheney.
This, coupled with constant war against thebarbarians terrorists and widespread corruption in Rome Washington, will eventually prove such a drain that we will crack up into regional powers.
and we never even got our Marcus Aurelius
posted by MasonDixon at 9:24 AM on June 6, 2007
This, coupled with constant war against the
and we never even got our Marcus Aurelius
posted by MasonDixon at 9:24 AM on June 6, 2007
Remember, Texas has the unique ability to transmogrify into FIVE separate states if it wants. So maybe we Lone Star types could do that and then some of the new states could secede and others could stay. Or we could fight an internal civil war, where a Houston state tries to keep an El Paso state from trying to hook up with New Mexico or something. Also, allegedly Texas can demand its own navy at any time, but that seems to be apocryphal.
posted by Midnight Creeper at 9:28 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by Midnight Creeper at 9:28 AM on June 6, 2007
Texas has the unique ability to transmogrify into FIVE separate states if it wants
Holy crap, Texas is like Voltron.
posted by Gamblor at 9:33 AM on June 6, 2007 [4 favorites]
Holy crap, Texas is like Voltron.
posted by Gamblor at 9:33 AM on June 6, 2007 [4 favorites]
The idea is good, but the flag is awful.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 9:37 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 9:37 AM on June 6, 2007
If at first you don't secede, try triagenics.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:49 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:49 AM on June 6, 2007
did the wrong side win the civil war? i'm as anti-slavery as anyone (don't look at me that way) but there were other issues too. the right of a state to secede...
many americans today don't fully appreciate the effort and impact of abraham lincoln. go back to 1861-1862 and look around: it will seem more likely than not that the union will fragment, and saving it appears nigh impossible.
america was a different place then. there was more of a collective identity as americans among the (white) populace, and they respected their leaders more and did what they were told. now we're mostly hyphenated americans, and we're gonna go out today and have a good time. nobody i know respects our leaders, and there is no appetite whatsoever for taking up arms against another state.
to see the future, study the past. ancient rome was not conquered from without, it crumbled from within after the romans got to where we are today. they lost their collective identity as romans and spent an ever-increasing portion of their time on leisure pursuits. there came a time when the sum of the parts exceeded the whole, and it disintegrated; a more recent example is the former soviet union. we're on the threshhold now. i've been telling folks for years that america and its familiar outline are not eternal, and the southwest will be first to go after enough mexicans settle here, mexico will regain sovereignty over the guadalupe hidalgo lands. this is no cause for concern; the mexicans can't fuck it up any worse than we did, and by the time this happens, the peso will likely be more stable than the dollar. buenos dias!
posted by bruce at 9:52 AM on June 6, 2007
many americans today don't fully appreciate the effort and impact of abraham lincoln. go back to 1861-1862 and look around: it will seem more likely than not that the union will fragment, and saving it appears nigh impossible.
america was a different place then. there was more of a collective identity as americans among the (white) populace, and they respected their leaders more and did what they were told. now we're mostly hyphenated americans, and we're gonna go out today and have a good time. nobody i know respects our leaders, and there is no appetite whatsoever for taking up arms against another state.
to see the future, study the past. ancient rome was not conquered from without, it crumbled from within after the romans got to where we are today. they lost their collective identity as romans and spent an ever-increasing portion of their time on leisure pursuits. there came a time when the sum of the parts exceeded the whole, and it disintegrated; a more recent example is the former soviet union. we're on the threshhold now. i've been telling folks for years that america and its familiar outline are not eternal, and the southwest will be first to go after enough mexicans settle here, mexico will regain sovereignty over the guadalupe hidalgo lands. this is no cause for concern; the mexicans can't fuck it up any worse than we did, and by the time this happens, the peso will likely be more stable than the dollar. buenos dias!
posted by bruce at 9:52 AM on June 6, 2007
This is fine for the novelty politics of it, but to clarify the point a bit, secession is an act of war. Membership in the Union is not voluntary.
Map of Federal Spending by Date per Dollar of Taxes 2004, I can't find a later map. Less than $1.00 means the state pays more in taxes than it gets back in the budget. And Vermont is worse than Texas.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:53 AM on June 6, 2007
Map of Federal Spending by Date per Dollar of Taxes 2004, I can't find a later map. Less than $1.00 means the state pays more in taxes than it gets back in the budget. And Vermont is worse than Texas.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:53 AM on June 6, 2007
ohgod..Map of Federal Spending by State, not Date. Dammit.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:53 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by Pastabagel at 9:53 AM on June 6, 2007
Oh I'd love to see them try. First we'd have to pull all their federal fudning and reclaim all military assets. Then buidl a nice wall around their border to stop their starving citizens from invading the US after their economy completely tanks or after their little skirmishes with Mexico begin to get serious. They'll lose a generation of young men and the people left over will be too heavily indoctrined in creationism and the 'will of the white man' to be welcomed back into the US proper. The US and Mexico will carve up the remains.
posted by damn dirty ape at 9:57 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by damn dirty ape at 9:57 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
I've long believed that California should leave. I love my US out of California t-shirt.
posted by rbs at 10:04 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by rbs at 10:04 AM on June 6, 2007
I've long believed that California should leave. I love my US out of California t-shirt.
I used to feel that way. Because I was bitter about how crappy most of what passes for popular entertainment in America is. Now I realize that if California left, whatever was left of the US would probably soon go bankrupt, because, love it or hate it, California's a money-making machine. (And quite frankly, more and more I'm rediscovering an affinity for California's political sensibilities.)
posted by saulgoodman at 10:18 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
I used to feel that way. Because I was bitter about how crappy most of what passes for popular entertainment in America is. Now I realize that if California left, whatever was left of the US would probably soon go bankrupt, because, love it or hate it, California's a money-making machine. (And quite frankly, more and more I'm rediscovering an affinity for California's political sensibilities.)
posted by saulgoodman at 10:18 AM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
This is fine for the novelty politics of it, but to clarify the point a bit, secession is an act of war. Membership in the Union is not voluntary.
Pastabagel
Actually, this brings up something I've wanted to ask for a long time, and since it's sort of relevant to this thread, I'll ask it here. Is membership in the Union voluntary? Can you explain the legal rationale behind your statement?
I've always wondered what the legal status of secession in the US is. The Constitution does not explicitly say that once in you can never leave. The closest thing that people bring up is Article 4, Section 4, the two clauses of which guarantee a republican form of government to the states and protection from invasion and domestic violence. I believe there was even a Supreme Court case about that, but I don't remember which one. Regardless, using that clause as a justification for forcibly keeping states in the Union seems pretty flimsy if they non-violently voluntarily secede, especially considering that no explicit mention is made anywhere that you can never leave and initial entry to the Union is voluntary. What I'm asking is, what's the Consitutional argument that a state can never secede? I'm looking for concrete legal arguments rather than ideological or practical reasons (like the federal government having more guns and money and thus making the rules.)
posted by Sangermaine at 10:22 AM on June 6, 2007
Pastabagel
Actually, this brings up something I've wanted to ask for a long time, and since it's sort of relevant to this thread, I'll ask it here. Is membership in the Union voluntary? Can you explain the legal rationale behind your statement?
I've always wondered what the legal status of secession in the US is. The Constitution does not explicitly say that once in you can never leave. The closest thing that people bring up is Article 4, Section 4, the two clauses of which guarantee a republican form of government to the states and protection from invasion and domestic violence. I believe there was even a Supreme Court case about that, but I don't remember which one. Regardless, using that clause as a justification for forcibly keeping states in the Union seems pretty flimsy if they non-violently voluntarily secede, especially considering that no explicit mention is made anywhere that you can never leave and initial entry to the Union is voluntary. What I'm asking is, what's the Consitutional argument that a state can never secede? I'm looking for concrete legal arguments rather than ideological or practical reasons (like the federal government having more guns and money and thus making the rules.)
posted by Sangermaine at 10:22 AM on June 6, 2007
Last time I was in Monterey, CA, I saw a monument that said this spot used to be the capital of Mexico. Not sure how that's relevant here, but I just thought it was pretty interesting. Carry on.
posted by b_thinky at 10:30 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by b_thinky at 10:30 AM on June 6, 2007
I think California should secede since I don't belive it actually exists anyway.
Oh, it exists, all right. Just ask all of the pissed-off people in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Arizona, Nevada, etc., etc., where home prices are skyrocketing because of all the Californians fleeing that state and moving to theirs.
posted by blucevalo at 10:30 AM on June 6, 2007
Oh, it exists, all right. Just ask all of the pissed-off people in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Arizona, Nevada, etc., etc., where home prices are skyrocketing because of all the Californians fleeing that state and moving to theirs.
posted by blucevalo at 10:30 AM on June 6, 2007
america was a different place then. there was more of a collective identity as americans among the (white) populace, and they respected their leaders more and did what they were told. now we're mostly hyphenated americans, and we're gonna go out today and have a good time. nobody i know respects our leaders, and there is no appetite whatsoever for taking up arms against another state.
bruce
I'm not sure if you're being ironic, but you have this completely backwards. America in the past was much, much more culturally divided than it is today, with little to no nationally identity as we undertand it now. Proof of this is seen in, oh, the Civil War and all the events preceding it. The 13 Colonies, when they broke from Britain, where all very, very different from one another (which is why it's aggravating when people talk as if all the Colonies were Puritans), and these very strong regional differences continued to affect politics and culture for the next century. It was really only with the rise of mass popular culture through newspapers, then radio, and finally TV that regional identities began to fade and Americans began adopting a relatively national culture. Go anywhere in the country, and you'll find people going to similar restaurants, wearing similar fashions, listening to similar music, watching similar shows, etc. This wasn't true at all in the 19th century, when traveling from the North to the South or the North to the West meant going to a very different place culturally. It's actually ironic that people long for some kind of idealized "pure" past and lament the Balkanization of America today, because the opposite is what has happened.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:32 AM on June 6, 2007 [6 favorites]
bruce
I'm not sure if you're being ironic, but you have this completely backwards. America in the past was much, much more culturally divided than it is today, with little to no nationally identity as we undertand it now. Proof of this is seen in, oh, the Civil War and all the events preceding it. The 13 Colonies, when they broke from Britain, where all very, very different from one another (which is why it's aggravating when people talk as if all the Colonies were Puritans), and these very strong regional differences continued to affect politics and culture for the next century. It was really only with the rise of mass popular culture through newspapers, then radio, and finally TV that regional identities began to fade and Americans began adopting a relatively national culture. Go anywhere in the country, and you'll find people going to similar restaurants, wearing similar fashions, listening to similar music, watching similar shows, etc. This wasn't true at all in the 19th century, when traveling from the North to the South or the North to the West meant going to a very different place culturally. It's actually ironic that people long for some kind of idealized "pure" past and lament the Balkanization of America today, because the opposite is what has happened.
posted by Sangermaine at 10:32 AM on June 6, 2007 [6 favorites]
13% of Vermont wants to secede, up from 8% last year.
Well, statistics are a funny thing. I bet it would be safe to say that 13% of Vermonters would want a house made of cheese, too.
posted by Dave Faris at 10:35 AM on June 6, 2007
Well, statistics are a funny thing. I bet it would be safe to say that 13% of Vermonters would want a house made of cheese, too.
posted by Dave Faris at 10:35 AM on June 6, 2007
Well, statistics are a funny thing. I bet it would be safe to say that 13% of Vermonters would want a house made of cheese, too.
Heh. As long as it's Cabot Cheese! :-)
posted by paddbear at 10:39 AM on June 6, 2007
Heh. As long as it's Cabot Cheese! :-)
posted by paddbear at 10:39 AM on June 6, 2007
If we Californians Secede, and so does Vermont, you know we're gonna just take it over. In minutes. We have too great a need for their Chubby Hubby resources.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:39 AM on June 6, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:39 AM on June 6, 2007 [2 favorites]
what's the Consitutional argument that a state can never secede? I'm looking for concrete legal arguments rather than ideological or practical reasons (like the federal government having more guns and money and thus making the rules.)
The constitutional scholars can give better explanations, but there doesn't seem to be anything explicitly stating a state can't leave, but there's nothing staying they can, either. The case law for this has only one relevant example: US vs. The Confederacy.
No clear-cut rules means no governing authority means the guy with the most guns and money makes the rules.
posted by Gamblor at 10:44 AM on June 6, 2007
The constitutional scholars can give better explanations, but there doesn't seem to be anything explicitly stating a state can't leave, but there's nothing staying they can, either. The case law for this has only one relevant example: US vs. The Confederacy.
No clear-cut rules means no governing authority means the guy with the most guns and money makes the rules.
posted by Gamblor at 10:44 AM on June 6, 2007
I would like for Washington, Oregon and California to be provinces of Canada.
posted by Danf at 10:50 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by Danf at 10:50 AM on June 6, 2007
This wasn't true at all in the 19th century, when traveling from the North to the South or the North to the West meant going to a very different place culturally. It's actually ironic that people long for some kind of idealized "pure" past and lament the Balkanization of America today, because the opposite is what has happened.
Sigh--I find this not just ironic, but sad. My sentiment goes the opposite way: I long for an idealized diversified America, where all the states are like little nations of their own with distinct regional cultures, industries, systems of law, cuisine, fashion, etc... Kind of like the EU, only taken seriously. (I keed, I keed...)
posted by saulgoodman at 10:54 AM on June 6, 2007
Sigh--I find this not just ironic, but sad. My sentiment goes the opposite way: I long for an idealized diversified America, where all the states are like little nations of their own with distinct regional cultures, industries, systems of law, cuisine, fashion, etc... Kind of like the EU, only taken seriously. (I keed, I keed...)
posted by saulgoodman at 10:54 AM on June 6, 2007
For all those sympathetic to California's desires for independence.
It's a t-shirt.
posted by coolhappysteve at 11:00 AM on June 6, 2007
It's a t-shirt.
posted by coolhappysteve at 11:00 AM on June 6, 2007
Yes, hence the term "Generica". When I travel for business, I can't help but notice that outside of the downtown areas, most cities look the same. The same clothes, stores, restaurants, etc.
posted by Gamblor at 11:02 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by Gamblor at 11:02 AM on June 6, 2007
Sangermaine:
The operative case here is Texas v. White which held that the Constitution does not permit states to secede. The case dealt with the post-civil war disposition of assets of the Confederate state of Texas. The court held that even during the war, all the confederate state were still part of the Union (thus, it was not a foreign war), and that their statehood remained unaltered after the war.
The court's reasoning relied on the Articles of Confederation's description of the U.S. as a "perpetual union". (Note that historically, the United States has had two constitutions, the Articles of Confederation being the first. Texas v. White's opinion, and its historical context, are very interesting. For example, the opinion leaves open the possibility that the Union could be dissolved by consent of the states.
In my humble opinion, there is additional support in the Constitution for the impossibility of secession. First, there's Article I, Section 10, which states among other things "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation". Furthermore, because this section, titled "Powers Prohibited of States" exists, it implies that the Constitution can limit the powers of the states.
Furthermore, as the Federal government evolved during the New Deal, the powers of the federal government have encroached more into what was once thought to be the exclusive province of the States, but the balance of power has not shifted the other way.
As a legal fiction, secession could be construed as a new foreign government (the "national government" of the seceding state) that has seized territory of the United States and captured it's citizens (the land is territory of the United States, and residents of a state are citizens of the United States).
Entry into the Union is only "voluntary" for territories of the United States. The land in question must have been annexed or purchased by the United States at some point prior to it becoming a state.
In the 90s there was a Montana seperatist group that claimed to have seceded from the Union, and that ended as you might expect.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:09 AM on June 6, 2007
The operative case here is Texas v. White which held that the Constitution does not permit states to secede. The case dealt with the post-civil war disposition of assets of the Confederate state of Texas. The court held that even during the war, all the confederate state were still part of the Union (thus, it was not a foreign war), and that their statehood remained unaltered after the war.
The court's reasoning relied on the Articles of Confederation's description of the U.S. as a "perpetual union". (Note that historically, the United States has had two constitutions, the Articles of Confederation being the first. Texas v. White's opinion, and its historical context, are very interesting. For example, the opinion leaves open the possibility that the Union could be dissolved by consent of the states.
In my humble opinion, there is additional support in the Constitution for the impossibility of secession. First, there's Article I, Section 10, which states among other things "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation". Furthermore, because this section, titled "Powers Prohibited of States" exists, it implies that the Constitution can limit the powers of the states.
Furthermore, as the Federal government evolved during the New Deal, the powers of the federal government have encroached more into what was once thought to be the exclusive province of the States, but the balance of power has not shifted the other way.
As a legal fiction, secession could be construed as a new foreign government (the "national government" of the seceding state) that has seized territory of the United States and captured it's citizens (the land is territory of the United States, and residents of a state are citizens of the United States).
Entry into the Union is only "voluntary" for territories of the United States. The land in question must have been annexed or purchased by the United States at some point prior to it becoming a state.
In the 90s there was a Montana seperatist group that claimed to have seceded from the Union, and that ended as you might expect.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:09 AM on June 6, 2007
Go California! I love this place. So much diversity. Cultural diversity, geographic diversity, intellectual diversity. Such a wide range of extremes, with infinite gradients between.
Plus it's fucking gorgeous. Every time I leave here I get terribly homesick. (My family has been here since before California was a state.) There's no place like it. New Zealand might come close.
Unlike many of the states in the Union, California would thrive on its own.
Food, technology, shipping, transport, manufacturing, mining, farming... its almost all here.
And what we don't have, we can easily import. Largest shipping port in the US. (Not SF Bay, Port of Los Angeles!)
And we'd actually benefit financially. We pay way more in federal taxes than we receive.
Granted, if we did secede the Federal government would probably go bankrupt. But, hey, that's not our problem.
I think California should secede since I don't belive it actually exists anyway.
You're right. It doesn't exist. It's just a fairytale. A figment of collectively deranged imagination. It's hideously ugly. Crowded. There's nothing here. Don't come here.
posted by loquacious at 11:14 AM on June 6, 2007 [3 favorites]
Plus it's fucking gorgeous. Every time I leave here I get terribly homesick. (My family has been here since before California was a state.) There's no place like it. New Zealand might come close.
Unlike many of the states in the Union, California would thrive on its own.
Food, technology, shipping, transport, manufacturing, mining, farming... its almost all here.
And what we don't have, we can easily import. Largest shipping port in the US. (Not SF Bay, Port of Los Angeles!)
And we'd actually benefit financially. We pay way more in federal taxes than we receive.
Granted, if we did secede the Federal government would probably go bankrupt. But, hey, that's not our problem.
I think California should secede since I don't belive it actually exists anyway.
You're right. It doesn't exist. It's just a fairytale. A figment of collectively deranged imagination. It's hideously ugly. Crowded. There's nothing here. Don't come here.
posted by loquacious at 11:14 AM on June 6, 2007 [3 favorites]
A few weeks ago there was a thread about the President signing a continuity of government executive order. You can see that based on Article IV:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
He has to sign something like this, especially if there is some non-zero integer possibility that the seat of the federal government is destroyed (i.e. washington is nuked by al qaeda or hit by an asteroid). The federal government has made a guarantee to the state to provide them with a republican form of government, and if that means conducting government over shortwave linking scattered underground bunkers, it has to do that.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:16 AM on June 6, 2007
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
He has to sign something like this, especially if there is some non-zero integer possibility that the seat of the federal government is destroyed (i.e. washington is nuked by al qaeda or hit by an asteroid). The federal government has made a guarantee to the state to provide them with a republican form of government, and if that means conducting government over shortwave linking scattered underground bunkers, it has to do that.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:16 AM on June 6, 2007
(rbs: sorry i assumed you were talking about california leaving the union from an anti-california perspective. should have thought twice.)
posted by saulgoodman at 11:16 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by saulgoodman at 11:16 AM on June 6, 2007
We pay way more in federal taxes than we receive
I hate to ruin your ode to Cali, but this is only true (as in the map above) based on discretionary spending. Add in social security and medicare, and every state gets more than it pays (which is why we run a huge deficit).
Furthermore, that map I posted is not without problems. For example, notice Virginia's astronomical number. Why is it so high?
The population isn't that large, but it has the Pentagon, a huge and critically important Air Force base, and the largest naval base in the world. It's also the state where they build aircraft carriers, and they aren't cheap.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:29 AM on June 6, 2007
I hate to ruin your ode to Cali, but this is only true (as in the map above) based on discretionary spending. Add in social security and medicare, and every state gets more than it pays (which is why we run a huge deficit).
Furthermore, that map I posted is not without problems. For example, notice Virginia's astronomical number. Why is it so high?
The population isn't that large, but it has the Pentagon, a huge and critically important Air Force base, and the largest naval base in the world. It's also the state where they build aircraft carriers, and they aren't cheap.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:29 AM on June 6, 2007
Pastabagel,
Thank you, that was the case I was trying to remember. The reasoning they use, though legally binding now, seems weak, though, seems to smack of victor's justice (since the Chief Justice was ex-leading Lincoln cabinet member and strong Northern supporter Salmon P. Chase, as the Wiki article notes). It seems weak because the Consitution was set up to modify, or perhaps even to replace the Articles of Confederation. (Side Question: I'm no expert, so does anyone know what the accepted status is? Did the Consitution completely replace the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789, or just modify it? It seems like the former to me, but I don't know.) Whether it merely modifies or replaces the Articles, the Consitution did introduce new language, that we've both cited above, that changes the legal landscape, so it seems flimsy to base something as serious as the right of a state to leave on one piece of a superseded document when its successor seems to leave room for it. If you take the political situation at the time into account, it seems more like the North-dominated Court was clearly not going to rule that secession was legal after having just finished a war over it, and grabbed whatever excuse they could find.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, just a curious mind, so the following may be sheer idiocy. You bring up a good point in Article I, Section 10, in that it establishes the concept of Constitutional limits on state power. But, doesn't the Tenth Amendment to the Consitution say, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." Since nowhere, even in Article I, Section 10, is the power of secession prohibited in the Consitution, wouldn't that mean it is reserved for the States?
The evolution and nearly continuous growth of Federal power since the Civil War is undeniable, but this seems less a legal point than a practical one. Whether or not things like the New Deal gave the Federal Government more power over the states has no impact on whether the Consitution prohibits secession or not.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:33 AM on June 6, 2007
Thank you, that was the case I was trying to remember. The reasoning they use, though legally binding now, seems weak, though, seems to smack of victor's justice (since the Chief Justice was ex-leading Lincoln cabinet member and strong Northern supporter Salmon P. Chase, as the Wiki article notes). It seems weak because the Consitution was set up to modify, or perhaps even to replace the Articles of Confederation. (Side Question: I'm no expert, so does anyone know what the accepted status is? Did the Consitution completely replace the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789, or just modify it? It seems like the former to me, but I don't know.) Whether it merely modifies or replaces the Articles, the Consitution did introduce new language, that we've both cited above, that changes the legal landscape, so it seems flimsy to base something as serious as the right of a state to leave on one piece of a superseded document when its successor seems to leave room for it. If you take the political situation at the time into account, it seems more like the North-dominated Court was clearly not going to rule that secession was legal after having just finished a war over it, and grabbed whatever excuse they could find.
I'm no Constitutional scholar, just a curious mind, so the following may be sheer idiocy. You bring up a good point in Article I, Section 10, in that it establishes the concept of Constitutional limits on state power. But, doesn't the Tenth Amendment to the Consitution say, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." Since nowhere, even in Article I, Section 10, is the power of secession prohibited in the Consitution, wouldn't that mean it is reserved for the States?
The evolution and nearly continuous growth of Federal power since the Civil War is undeniable, but this seems less a legal point than a practical one. Whether or not things like the New Deal gave the Federal Government more power over the states has no impact on whether the Consitution prohibits secession or not.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:33 AM on June 6, 2007
Can Miami, and South Florida, secede from Florida? We'll stay in the union, but really the hicks up state have nothing in common with the banana republic down south.
(In my dreams Miami secedes from the U.S. and forms the Caribbean Confederation with the Bahamas, Cuba and the rest of the Greater Antilles. It would be like some awesome pirate, water world utopia. We'd have the best rum in the world and instead of cars we'd all have boats and personal flight vehicles.)
posted by oddman at 12:12 PM on June 6, 2007
(In my dreams Miami secedes from the U.S. and forms the Caribbean Confederation with the Bahamas, Cuba and the rest of the Greater Antilles. It would be like some awesome pirate, water world utopia. We'd have the best rum in the world and instead of cars we'd all have boats and personal flight vehicles.)
posted by oddman at 12:12 PM on June 6, 2007
Every time I leave here I get terribly homesick. (My family has been here since before California was a state.) There's no place like it. New Zealand might come close.
posted by loquacious
Hey I like... parts of california. And much of it's very pretty. But california couldn't hold new zealand's jock strap. It's not even close.
posted by justgary at 12:12 PM on June 6, 2007
posted by loquacious
Hey I like... parts of california. And much of it's very pretty. But california couldn't hold new zealand's jock strap. It's not even close.
posted by justgary at 12:12 PM on June 6, 2007
Sangermaine,
The tenth amendment could not cover secession because that power is nonsensical as applied to either of the other two entities mentioned in the amendment, the federal government and the people. The federal government cannot secede from itself, and people cannot secede. Furthermore, if Article I prohibits secession, then the tenth cannot shift it to the states.
MY point about the New Deal was not about the legislation but the supreme court caselaw. The New Deal court gave us the interpretation that any activity that has some impact on interstate commerce can be regulated by the federal goverment (including a farmer growing wheat for his own use). The federal government's ability to set speed limits, regulate education, provide SS and medicare, etc all derive from New Deal courts' interpretations of the enumerated powers. The state of the law now is that if the federal government gives the state money for something, it can regulate it, even if it is not one of their enumerated powers.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:27 PM on June 6, 2007
The tenth amendment could not cover secession because that power is nonsensical as applied to either of the other two entities mentioned in the amendment, the federal government and the people. The federal government cannot secede from itself, and people cannot secede. Furthermore, if Article I prohibits secession, then the tenth cannot shift it to the states.
MY point about the New Deal was not about the legislation but the supreme court caselaw. The New Deal court gave us the interpretation that any activity that has some impact on interstate commerce can be regulated by the federal goverment (including a farmer growing wheat for his own use). The federal government's ability to set speed limits, regulate education, provide SS and medicare, etc all derive from New Deal courts' interpretations of the enumerated powers. The state of the law now is that if the federal government gives the state money for something, it can regulate it, even if it is not one of their enumerated powers.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:27 PM on June 6, 2007
Pastabagel,
But you seem to be begging the question here. You're saying that Article I prohibits seccession, therfore Amendment 10 can't shift that power to the states. But does Article 1 prohibit it? The same goes for this: The federal government cannot secede from itself, and people cannot secede. Unless you mean that people cannot secede from themselves, then you're just stating your assumption again.
Iunderstand that the Federal Government can use monetary grants to gain regulatory powers in states, but I don't think that can be stretched to mean that the government has the power to regulate whether the state exists in the Union or not, unless it were paying the state to remain.
Also, you didn't say in your last post what you thought about the points in my first paragraph (the strength of the Texas case argument, the legitimacy, whether the Constitution supercedes the Articles, etc.) You seem very knowledgeable in these areas, so I'd be interested to read what you think.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:15 PM on June 6, 2007
But you seem to be begging the question here. You're saying that Article I prohibits seccession, therfore Amendment 10 can't shift that power to the states. But does Article 1 prohibit it? The same goes for this: The federal government cannot secede from itself, and people cannot secede. Unless you mean that people cannot secede from themselves, then you're just stating your assumption again.
Iunderstand that the Federal Government can use monetary grants to gain regulatory powers in states, but I don't think that can be stretched to mean that the government has the power to regulate whether the state exists in the Union or not, unless it were paying the state to remain.
Also, you didn't say in your last post what you thought about the points in my first paragraph (the strength of the Texas case argument, the legitimacy, whether the Constitution supercedes the Articles, etc.) You seem very knowledgeable in these areas, so I'd be interested to read what you think.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:15 PM on June 6, 2007
I visited Sacramento the other day, which used to be the California state capital back when it was still part of the US. Pretty weird.
posted by mullingitover at 1:34 PM on June 6, 2007
posted by mullingitover at 1:34 PM on June 6, 2007
Oh, wait, I'm in 2007. Please ignore that.
posted by mullingitover at 1:34 PM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by mullingitover at 1:34 PM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
And what we don't have, we can easily import.
Except, perhaps, fresh water. So long Colorado river allocation...
posted by MikeMc at 2:25 PM on June 6, 2007
Except, perhaps, fresh water. So long Colorado river allocation...
posted by MikeMc at 2:25 PM on June 6, 2007
Pastabagel wrote:
Map of Federal Spending by Date per Dollar of Taxes 2004, I can't find a later map. Less than $1.00 means the state pays more in taxes than it gets back in the budget. And Vermont is worse than Texas.
Someone really should start a movement to call the South "The Welfare States". A buck fucking seventy seven Mississippi, what the fuck?
posted by any major dude at 2:29 PM on June 6, 2007
Map of Federal Spending by Date per Dollar of Taxes 2004, I can't find a later map. Less than $1.00 means the state pays more in taxes than it gets back in the budget. And Vermont is worse than Texas.
Someone really should start a movement to call the South "The Welfare States". A buck fucking seventy seven Mississippi, what the fuck?
posted by any major dude at 2:29 PM on June 6, 2007
any major dude writes "Someone really should start a movement to call the South 'The Welfare States'. A buck fucking seventy seven Mississippi, what the fuck?"
It would be even better to overlay the red/blue state map over that one. A majority of the red states actually big drains on the country. We should give them their small government they want so badly by not giving them back a dime more than they pay.
posted by mullingitover at 3:13 PM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
It would be even better to overlay the red/blue state map over that one. A majority of the red states actually big drains on the country. We should give them their small government they want so badly by not giving them back a dime more than they pay.
posted by mullingitover at 3:13 PM on June 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
Obligatory link to The Ayes of Texas, a Heinleinesque novel in which Texas, led by a bionic war veteran (not making this up, folks), pulls out of the Union as the U.S. is on the brink of an ill-fated treaty with the U.S.S.R. (you know, back when we worried about the Ruskies) and generally just kicks ass all over the place.
It was a neat book when I was little, but looking back it's like some kind of libertarian Cold War wet dream.
posted by adipocere at 3:59 PM on June 6, 2007
It was a neat book when I was little, but looking back it's like some kind of libertarian Cold War wet dream.
posted by adipocere at 3:59 PM on June 6, 2007
I would like for Washington, Oregon and California to be provinces of Canada.
I think we could live without California, thanks. Now Vermont, that would be a nice, I would welcome them.
posted by Chuckles at 6:05 PM on June 6, 2007
I think we could live without California, thanks. Now Vermont, that would be a nice, I would welcome them.
posted by Chuckles at 6:05 PM on June 6, 2007
You're right. It doesn't exist. It's just a fairytale. A figment of collectively deranged imagination. It's hideously ugly. Crowded. There's nothing here. Don't come here.
Speaking as a native Californian (born and grew up in Southern California, spent much of my adult life in Northern California) who returned here after a year ago after three years living elsewhere, there is much about California that is amazing, if you can find the time and cash to go see it all, but as a place to have any kind of actual life (unless you make beaucoup bucks), it's been way overrated for at least the past 15 years.
Nice place to visit. Not so nice to try to put down roots in.
posted by blucevalo at 10:14 PM on June 6, 2007
Speaking as a native Californian (born and grew up in Southern California, spent much of my adult life in Northern California) who returned here after a year ago after three years living elsewhere, there is much about California that is amazing, if you can find the time and cash to go see it all, but as a place to have any kind of actual life (unless you make beaucoup bucks), it's been way overrated for at least the past 15 years.
Nice place to visit. Not so nice to try to put down roots in.
posted by blucevalo at 10:14 PM on June 6, 2007
HAHA! MAKING FUN OF TEXAS IS FUN! HAHA!
hoo... hoo boy!
posted by bradth27 at 10:15 PM on June 6, 2007
hoo... hoo boy!
posted by bradth27 at 10:15 PM on June 6, 2007
In the 90s there was a Montana seperatist group that claimed to have seceded from the Union, and that ended as you might expect.
Mr. Show covered this. (first 30 seconds)
posted by Bonzai at 12:17 AM on June 7, 2007
Mr. Show covered this. (first 30 seconds)
posted by Bonzai at 12:17 AM on June 7, 2007
Thomas Jefferson made arguments related to state power citing the Compact Theory, that states only cede some power to the federal government by choice as a condition of entry into the union, but still retain their sovereignty. By this logic, states still contain the sovereign right of free association and could secede at any time.
Obviously this was not even universally held then. I guess my problem with saying that states have voluntarily give up the power to secede is that I doubt a single one in its ratification process explicitly admitted as much, and I am very certain that the topic must have come up. The reason why I doubt this without evidence is that if it happened, then everyone would be bringing it up. The fact that no one is tells me without doing a ton of research that it probably does not exist. Can anyone anywhere provide a document that indicates that a state as an explicit condition of entry was disallowed from leaving what everyone admits was a voluntary union? The articles of confederation say EXPLICITLY that a state cannot leave the union without a vote from all states. The US Constitution does not.
Agreed though, moot point as the Civil War settled it by force.
posted by erikharmon at 3:27 PM on June 7, 2007
Obviously this was not even universally held then. I guess my problem with saying that states have voluntarily give up the power to secede is that I doubt a single one in its ratification process explicitly admitted as much, and I am very certain that the topic must have come up. The reason why I doubt this without evidence is that if it happened, then everyone would be bringing it up. The fact that no one is tells me without doing a ton of research that it probably does not exist. Can anyone anywhere provide a document that indicates that a state as an explicit condition of entry was disallowed from leaving what everyone admits was a voluntary union? The articles of confederation say EXPLICITLY that a state cannot leave the union without a vote from all states. The US Constitution does not.
Agreed though, moot point as the Civil War settled it by force.
posted by erikharmon at 3:27 PM on June 7, 2007
Someone really should start a movement to call the South "The Welfare States". A buck fucking seventy seven Mississippi, what the fuck?
It would be even better to overlay the red/blue state map over that one. A majority of the red states actually big drains on the country. We should give them their small government they want so badly by not giving them back a dime more than they pay.
Yeah, fuck the rural poor. Why don't they get a job, those lazy bastards.
posted by Snyder at 4:37 PM on June 7, 2007
It would be even better to overlay the red/blue state map over that one. A majority of the red states actually big drains on the country. We should give them their small government they want so badly by not giving them back a dime more than they pay.
Yeah, fuck the rural poor. Why don't they get a job, those lazy bastards.
posted by Snyder at 4:37 PM on June 7, 2007
« Older onBeing: Videographies That Capture People | To Silently Go Where No Man Has Gone Before Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by HuronBob at 8:21 AM on June 6, 2007