WI: A modern USA State declares it has seceded from the USA

[yulzari]

What actions would the Federal authorities take if a modern USA State seceded following a popular vote of the people of that State?

Just for the sake of avoiding cross border issues, let us say Louisiana as our example.

The issue is not whether the people of the State may, or may not, be wise to want to secede but that the given is that they actively want to.

In the 3rd American Civil War the Federal decision was to impose the Union by force. Is this a serious option in the 21st century?

 

[Maeglin]

There is no right of unilateral secession at international law. Secession must be the result of bilateral negotiations, so no-one would recognise such a declaration.

If something like this actually went ahead, the US wouldn't need to launch a civil war. It'd just cut off economic access to the state(s) until the secessionists fold, and since no-one else in the international community is recognising the seceding state, no-one would care.

 

[Fox Eating Bamboo]

In the 3rd American Civil War the Federal decision was to impose the Union by force.

I... must have missed the first two American civil wars. Are you talking about the Whiskey Rebellion and... another one?

 

[lionhead]

I... must have missed the first two American civil wars. Are you talking about the Whiskey Rebellion and... another one?

maybe he means the Utah war, and the American Civil war of course

 

[lionhead]

In the 3rd American Civil War the Federal decision was to impose the Union by force. Is this a serious option in the 21st century?

No. Civil war in the USA would be, bloody. But everything is so fragile(economy, infrastructure, patriotism, dissent), it will collapse before it begins.

 

[yulzari]

So you think a modern Federal USA government would be prepared to cause at least economic suffering to the people who have democratically declared that they do not want to be in the Union. And if the people do not bow to these actions?

International law is possibly irrelevant. De facto states recognise who they wish to. There is nothing to stop Mexico and France , for example, from recognising the putative country of Louisiana.

First Civil war between Parliament and the King, Second between Secessionists and Loyalists and Third between the Confederate states and the Federal Union.

 

[Maeglin]

So you think a modern Federal USA government would be prepared to cause at least economic suffering to the people who have democratically declared that they do not want to be in the Union. And if the people do not bow to these actions?

Presumably, the secessionists should have thought about the consequences of their actions. The pressure won't be on Washington, it'll be on the state secessionists who have to explain to their people why the internet is no longer working.

International law is possibly irrelevant. De facto states recognise who they wish to. There is nothing to stop Mexico and France , for example, from recognising the putative country of Louisiana.

De facto, states obey international law. The consequences of not doing so are too high: what happens if Brittany were to declare independence in the aftermath of France recognising Louisiana?

First Civil war between Parliament and the King, Second between Secessionists and Loyalists and Third between the Confederate states and the Federal Union.

The Parliament/King thing was the English Civil War. It's there in the title: America wasn't involved.

 

[lionhead]

So you think a modern Federal USA government would be prepared to cause at least economic suffering to the people who have democratically declared that they do not want to be in the Union. And if the people do not bow to these actions?

Oh they will. Or a massive exodus. Or a skirmish in the state itself by unionists. It depends on how much the people of that state want to secede. Once they notice nothing will come into the country and nothing will come out, they rejoin the union.

 

[ProfJets]

So you think a modern Federal USA government would be prepared to cause at least economic suffering to the people who have democratically declared that they do not want to be in the Union. And if the people do not bow to these actions?

International law is possibly irrelevant. De facto states recognise who they wish to. There is nothing to stop Mexico and France , for example, from recognising the putative country of Louisiana.

First Civil war between Parliament and the King, Second between Secessionists and Loyalists and Third between the Confederate states and the Federal Union.

So the third is the American Civil War (1861-65) and the second is the Revolution (though when you say secessionist people tend to think of Southerners during the Civil War, not to the revolutionaries of 1776). There was certainly an element of civil war within the colonies during the Revolutionary War (1775-83), but no one actually calls that war the Second Civil War, or a civil war at all. As for the first: are you referring to the English Civil War? Because the colonies in North America were not really involved in the fighting of that war. Even if the colonies were involved in the fighting, it wouldn't really be an American Civil War, seeing as there was no U.S.A. at the time.

Point is: if you say Civil War, people will think of the Civil War (1861-65). If you refer to a Second Civil War, let alone a third, you'll get blank stares.

 

[yulzari]

Presumably, the secessionists should have thought about the consequences of their actions. The pressure won't be on Washington, it'll be on the state secessionists who have to explain to their people why the internet is no longer working.

The premise is that the people of the state support secession. Therefore one can argue that they have voted democratically. The Federal government is, therefore, trying to force them against their collective will. If they refuse to submit what then?

To quote from elsewhere 'democracy is a b*gger when the people don't vote as they ought to'. 4 million lemmings can't be wrong!

 

[lionhead]

So the third is the American Civil War (1861-65) and the second is the Revolution (though when you say secessionist people tend to think of Southerners during the Civil War, not to the revolutionaries of 1776). There was certainly an element of civil war within the colonies during the Revolutionary War (1775-83), but no one actually calls that war the Second Civil War. As for the first: are you referring to the English Civil War? Because the colonies in North America were not really involved in the fighting of that war. Even if the colonies were involved in the fighting, it wouldn't really be an American Civil War, seeing as there was no U.S.A. at the time.

The original poster was referring to his idea as the 3rd Civil war.

The Revolutionary war was not a Civil War. At all.

 

[yulzari]

The Parliament/King thing was the English Civil War. It's there in the title: America wasn't involved.

That might have come as a surprise to Americans at the time. IIRC Maryland was the last place in the war to hold out for the King.

 

[David T]

So you think a modern Federal USA government would be prepared to cause at least economic suffering to the people who have democratically declared that they do not want to be in the Union.

Of course they would--and to military measures if necessary. (Such measures could be "defensive" of course because in practice to make secession meaningful the "seceding" state would have to seize federal property.) BTW, would such a state have to recognize the right of any county in the state to secede from the state? And would each county that had so seceded have to recognize the independence of every township that wanted to secede from the county?

Talking about the democratic right of self-determination in such a context is question-begging because it does not answer the question of just what is the unit that counts as a *self*and that gets to decide.

If you object to my comparison of states to counties, consider what James Madison wrote: "Were this a mere league, each of the parties would have an equal right to expound it; and of course there would be as much right in one to insist on the bargain, as in another to renounce it. But the Union of the States is, according to the Virga. doctrine in—98-99. a Constitutional Union; and the right to judge in the last resort, concerning usurpations of power, affecting the validity of the Union, referred by that doctrine to the parties to the compact. On recurring to original principles, and to extreme cases, a single State might indeed be so oppressed as to be justified in shaking off the yoke; *so might a single County* of a State be, under an extremity of oppression. But until such justifications can be pleaded the compact is obligatory in both cases." http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-02-02-02-1877 [my emphasis--DT]

 

[yulzari]

The Revolutionary war was not a Civil War. At all.

The Loyalists were just as American and just as patriotic as the Secessionists. It was a bloody civil war to its participants.

However. We are diverging from the modern premise.

 

[Maeglin]

The premise is that the people of the state support secession. Therefore one can argue that they have voted democratically. The Federal government is, therefore, trying to force them against their collective will. If they refuse to submit what then?

To quote from elsewhere 'democracy is a b*gger when the people don't vote as they ought to'. 4 million lemmings can't be wrong!

If they refuse, then enjoy the blockade. Washington can wait.

As for democracy, if I and everyone in my street wanted to secede from my country (let's call it the Peoples Republic of My Street), that would be entirely democratic. It would also mean nothing, because the territorial integrity of a state means there is no unilateral right of secession. Full stop.

 

[Zheng He]

maybe he means the Utah war, and the American Civil war of course

There is also the war that Ohio fought against Michigan. Ohio lost and had to keep Toledo as a result...

 

[Maeglin]

That might have come as a surprise to Americans at the time. IIRC Maryland was the last place in the war to hold out for the King.

Maryland wasn't in the war, so the point is rather moot. Since the East India Company was operating at the time, by your reasoning the English Civil War was an Indian war too.

 

[yulzari]

The level at which the right to an independent state exists is always moot. If it is wrong for Louisiana to secede (my apology to the doubtless good people of Louisiana) then why should it have been right for say Pennsylvania to secede from Britain.

The European Union has given smaller political units the opportunity to secede from their larger states whilst remaining within an overall supportive structure.

After Slovakia, the ex Yugoslav states, and a free referendum in Scotland, why not Brittany, Catalonia, Lombardy, Bavaria or Flanders?

The US Constitution was a creation of Man and is not Holy Writ. It can be changed, it can be found outdated, without relevance or plain wrong in whole or part whatever merit there may be in the whole.

 

[Legend-in-Exile]

The Loyalists were just as American and just as patriotic as the Secessionists. It was a bloody civil war to its participants.

However. We are diverging from the modern premise.

I would argue that neither the loyalists or the revolutionaries were 'American' in a large way - at least at the start of the war.

There were whigs and tories, the whole American identity as distinct from English/British emerged as a result of the war. The colonists felt they were being denied their rights as Englishmen (representation) hard to argue you deserve those rights if you are not English.

The war started as a political dispute, only later did it become 'nationalist'

To go back to the OPs Question, I'd imagine the US would refuse to acknowledge the validity of the declaration. They'd arrest the instigators and possibly charge them with treason.

 

[yulzari]

Maryland wasn't in the war, so the point is rather moot. Since the East India Company was operating at the time, by your reasoning the English Civil War was an Indian war too.

Maryland was subject to competing demands from Parliament and the King so it had to take sides. Maryland had been British since it inception and the civil war was to gain control of its overall government by force of arms. Were Parliament and King to have armed adherents in India then it too would have been involved just as it was in the 7 Years war with France.