Should States Be Allowed To Secede From The Union of the United States Of Americ

1. 70

   vveaseyposted 11 years ago

   Should States Be Allowed To Secede From The Union of the United States Of America?
   
   Which Could Effectively End The Union That So Many died during the Civil War to maintain.
   
   

   replyreport
2. 0

   JThomp42posted 11 years ago

   No, I don't think so, nor would they want to. The Pledge of Allegiance says it all. We are still "One" nation and will remain that way.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      vveaseyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      maybe you haven't heard but since the election people from 30 states have signed on to some website saying they want their state to secede from the united states

      replyreport
   2. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      They are just wasting their time. This will never happen.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      adagio4639posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      There are a lot of stupid and ignorant people in the country. And those calling for secession are among them. They are free to live, but the land stays put. It belongs to the United States of America.

      replyreport
3. 66

   LandmarkWealthposted 11 years ago

   That is debateable.  In the case of Texas, they were a soverign nation before they joined the US.  Many there feel they maintained there right to leave the union at anytime when they joined.  If you read our founding documents the decleration of Independence says...
   
   "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"
   
   Many States feel the Gov't has dramatically overached and in many cases violated their 10th amendment rights. You may not agree that the gov't is overeaching or impeding individual liberty.  But from the perspective of those who do feel that way, they have simply had enough.  There goal is to part peacfully. 
   
   In reality this won't be permitted anytime soon.  The most conservative states are the largest source of domestic energy production.  For that reason alone, they'd never be allowed to leave.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      vveaseyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      and that's a good thing
      as long a some fools don't try to re create the civil war

      replyreport
   2. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If and when it should happen, I would hope it could be done peacfully. The texas secession movement is not looking to declare war on the US.  Either way the Federal Gov't won't allow it.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      adagio4639posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The 10th Amendment says nothing about States Rights. It speaks to State Powers. Big difference.  There is no states rights. That was the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution is about 'We the People". The rights of the people. NOT the States.

      replyreport
4. 61

   Joy Morzosposted 11 years ago

   Yes!  I believe that the Federal government exist for the benefit of the Federal government!  Individual states should be able to govern themselves without Big Brother dictating to them!  As for the men who died in the Civil War... just as many if not more died trying to preserve the states rights!

   replyreport
   1. 70

      vveaseyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If it's all of states go their individual ways, doesn't that dissolve the "United States?"

      replyreport
   2. 59

      adagio4639posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That's because you believe in the Articles of Confederation. NOT the Constitution. The Articles were about the States. The Constitution says in the Preamble. "We the People". The constitution was written for the people. NOT the States.

      replyreport
5. 0

   Larry Wallposted 11 years ago

   We fought a Civil War over this issue. Once a member of the union, there is no backing out. Our nation cannot survive if we have a bunch of "foreign countries" located here and there with different laws, different constitutions and different working conditions. Interstate commerce, which includes trucks, and the underground oil and gas pipelines you do not see. Vital ports would be in the hands of these foreign governments. We are one nation under God.
   
   Ending slavery was a result of the civil war, but the war was fought over state rights, i.e., the right to allow or prohibit slavery and the war was fought for the preservation of the union.
   
   As one poster noted, Texas was a sovereign nation. It sought to become a member of the Union. It is a perpetual contract. Concessions were made to Texas when they came into the union. They claim 10 miles of territorial waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Florida got the same deal. The rest of the states have three miles.
   
   If these states did leave the union, how are they going to replace the federal money they receive? Will they reimburse the union for the value of the interstate highways in their states? Will you need a passport to enter and leave the state? Will the air-traffic  controllers follow the same rules? As it has been said, "United we stated. Divided we fall."
   People who want their states to leave the union are not thinking about future consequences.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      vveaseyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree
      Only one thing
      You said  the civil war was over states Rights, but it was really slavery . Rich slave owners wanted to keep free slave labor. so they used States Rights to get the poor and middle class to fight the war, so they could keep it

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You are right, slavery was the real issue, however, succession was based on the issue of state rights, which included tax issue, and other items besides slavery--in an effort to make the succession seem more legitimate. Slavery was the issue.

      replyreport
6. 88

   suzettenaplesposted 10 years ago

   No, united we stand; divided we fall.  If we break up the union we are acting like spoiled children. We would no longer be a world leader or power  nor would we have the privileges that go along with that.  Seceded states would be vulnerable to take over by unscrupulous countries.  States would find out quickly how much they depend on federal monies to run their states.  And economically it is better to remain as we are.  The Civil War proved that.   I cannot fathom or understand 50 separate countries as well as Canada and Mexico making up North America.  The Confederation of States did not work right after the American Revolution and it would be disaster to go back to that again!

   replyreport
7. 59

   adagio4639posted 9 years ago

   No. As Lincoln saw it, those Americans in any given state who disliked Union policies were free to leave, but they had no right to take the land with them, or to impose their secessionist preferences on their pro-Union neighbors both within their states and beyond. All Americans had invested in Fort Sumter and had a stake in the Mississippi River, and no single state or region could unilaterally take its land or waters and go home.

   replyreport
8. 53

   Setank Setunkposted 7 years ago

   This is a simple but controversial subject. In order to establish a legitimate Republic, the entities entering into this contract have to be recognized as sovereign states with legitimate government representation. Without this acknowledgment, even if it is only implied, the Republic itself is illegitimate. This is seldom discussed in modern times but is really important stuff.
   By this standard, and as independent sovereign entities, the 13 original colonies created a Republic. Although many would argue the binding nature of this contract, it is not an actual contract between 2 parties. The 2nd party was created out of thin air by the 13 members of the 1st party. The Constitution created by these States reflects the authority of the States in self-determination and supports and argument for legal succession. Texas entered the Republic as a sovereign nation as well.
   Sadly, slavery was just a byline in a civil war that was fought to end the continuing political struggle over Federal vs. State supremacy. Southern States had to re-enter the Republic as illegitimate entities owing their sovereignty to the Republic itself. All later states, with the exception of Texas were created by the Republic.
   This leaves the original Northern Colonies and Texas as the only States with a legitimate legal argument for succession. That is not to say they have the right to succeed but have legal grounds to assert such a right.

   replyreport