AHC: The U.S. kicks a state out

samcster94

Banned
Unlike secession, the idea of the U.S. kicking a state out against its will and downgrading it a territory, absorbing it into another state, or involuntarily giving it independence has never happened. What would it take for this to be seriously considered?? Bonus points if the state is not Southern.
 

Zachariah

Banned
Unlike secession, the idea of the U.S. kicking a state out against its will and downgrading it a territory, absorbing it into another state, or involuntarily giving it independence has never happened. What would it take for this to be seriously considered?? Bonus points if the state is not Southern.
How about if, for instance, they'd admitted Puerto Rico as a full state of the USA, and it still declared bankruptcy in the same way that's done in the past few days? Could that lead to them getting kicked out, and downgraded back to being a territory again?
 
Given that there's no mechanism for it in the constitution, I would be intrigued as to how it would work. At least with secession you can go "we're independent now, try and make us stay".
 
What if a foreign power somehow forced the United States into an unconditional surrender, and made it relinquish some of its states as new, independent nations (Hawaii is the most obvious choice).
 
Can't be done.

"[No] State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Article V.
That clause is interesting, and it makes me wonder if there are any bizarre circumstances where a state might voluntarily relinquish (probably partial) senate influence for some consideration or other.
 
Perhaps a slavocratic USA allows New England to leave, to reduce abolitionism and cut support for Tariffs and other issues that would hurt the South. If trade remains, it wouldn't hurt the remaining USA much and there are definite political advantages for the Southern elite.

Yes, I know that this is similar to Decades of Darkness.
 
Harry Truman thought that Nevada should be deprived of its statehood, writing in 1955:

"Then we came to the great gambling and marriage destruction hell, known as Nevada. To look at it from the air it is just that--hell on earth. There are tiny green specks on the landscape where dice, roulette, light-o-loves, crooked poker and gambling thugs thrive. Such places should be abolished and so should Nevada. It should never have been made a State. A county in the great State of California would be too much of a civil existence for that dead and sinful territory. Think of that awful, sinful place having two Senators and a congressman in Washington, and Alaska and Hawaii not represented. It is a travesty on our system and a disgrace to free government.

"Well, we finally passed the hell hole of iniquity by flying over one of the most beautiful spots in the whole world--Lake Tahoe..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=DVVffTwVVy4C&pg=PA317

He wasn't the first person to think so. In the late nineteenth century, Nevada was in the "bust" phase of the boom-and-bust mining cycle. Its population in 1900 was 42,335--less than it had been in 1870. The state had one-fourth the population of an average US congressional district. In 1897 *The Forum* published an article "Shall Nevade Be Deprived of Statehood?" which noted that

"In the course of a spirited editorial article entitled, "How to Deal with Nevada," the Chicago "Tribune" remarked:—

"'Congress is perfectly able to deal with the unprecedented condition of affairs which exists in Nevada. The silver-mines which made her all she was have been exhausted. She has no other mineral wealth. She has no agricultural resources. She has nothing to attract people; and, as a consequence, she is flickering out'

"The "Tribune" urges that the thing to do is to deprive Nevada of her statehood, or at least to exclude her Senators from Congress, as was done with the seceding Southern States during the war and reconstruction periods. The same newspaper serves timely notice upon Wyoming that, failing to show a satisfactory growth in population when the census of 1900 shall be returned, that State also may be invited to march out of the Union with her unfortunate neighbor. These suggestions have been quoted with approval by many newspapers; and the feasibility of merging Nevada into the more populous State of Utah has also been widely discussed during the past few years.

"To degrade loyal States by depriving them of important attributes of their sovereignty would be radical, if not revolutionary. If it were suspected that the real motive for their unprecedented humiliation was the fact that they disagreed politically with a view strenuously held by about 52 per cent of the voters in the nation, and persistently acted with the minority of 48 per cent, it is possible that the proposed proceeding would be worse than radical,—perilous indeed, and fraught with new evils more dangerous than those which it is sought to remove. But happily the time has not come when it is necessary to appeal to the deeper and graver arguments which might be urged against the dissolution of the Union on the instalment plan..." https://books.google.com/books?id=d0E9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA228

Despite the *Tribune* (which was probably just angry at Nevada's support for Bryan) there was no consitutional way to *force* Nevada to abandon its statehood. But I am wondering if the federal government could give it economic *incentives* to revert to territorial status or join a neighboring state--and whether in the desperate economic conditions of the 1890's, Nevada might actually be tempted to do so...
 
Last edited:

ben0628

Banned
Perhaps even after the US Constitution is passed, one state refuses to accept it as legal (but doesn't want to secede). And since there is no precedent for invading another state, the new US government that replaced the articles of confederation decides to kick the lone state out of the union
 
The easiest way, which doesn't give the bonus points of course, is after the ACW the "State Suicide Theory" is accepted and is approved of by the USSC.
 
Nevada added to Utah wouldn't work so well for Nevadans they'd be better off added to California. Nevada is actually a beautiful state its a shame nuclear weapons were tested there. A unique one too. Maybe just Clark County added to California and the rest added to Utah.
 
2 things to keep in mind about Nevada formation. One it was formed because the goverment did not want it to be part of Utah due to questions about Mormon loyally to the US. 2 California was considered to be too big to began with but due to the gold rush the goverment went with the boundaries California set for itself.
 
Considering how often Americans move between states, I imagine there will be quite a few people angry about their former homes or places their relatives live having statehood removed from it. And I am thinking maybe something for Oklahoma and Indian Territory?maybe around the Dust Bowl you have people try to forcibly cram them together or to stop Okies from leaving the area. Pretty outrageous, yah, but who knows? Maybe Huey Long or some Populists manage to get the Great Plains and Solid South together to take the next presidency, so as to avoid having their own states lose their electoral votes and Senators. Might also try something with Reconstruction, by unifying some states together, taking slices to make a Black majority state, and perhaps pushing it off at some point.
 

samcster94

Banned
Considering how often Americans move between states, I imagine there will be quite a few people angry about their former homes or places their relatives live having statehood removed from it. And I am thinking maybe something for Oklahoma and Indian Territory?maybe around the Dust Bowl you have people try to forcibly cram them together or to stop Okies from leaving the area. Pretty outrageous, yah, but who knows? Maybe Huey Long or some Populists manage to get the Great Plains and Solid South together to take the next presidency, so as to avoid having their own states lose their electoral votes and Senators. Might also try something with Reconstruction, by unifying some states together, taking slices to make a Black majority state, and perhaps pushing it off at some point.
The idea of an alt-Jim Crow taking apart a black majority state(think Sherman's reserve but on steroids) made out of old Southern states is VERY possible(in real life, one state was created out of another in the war for white Unionists). Simply having Rhode Island not ratify the U.S. Constitution in 1790 might do it. The Article V stuff (rural Western states are impossible to change effectively) is important but state boundaries redrawn outside of Reconstruction is unlikely(except by losing a war and having to cede territory). A MUCH worse Depression is a longshot but might do it.
 
You'd need to amend the Constitution. That means a state would have to sufficiently antagonize 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the other states. AND since that requires bipartisan support, the state would have to have minimal value to either party or be such a pain that its preferred party is willing to give up congressional seats and electoral votes.

I have a hard time seeing that scenario play out. Vermont is adjacent to a foreign country and small enough that the Democrats don't need it, but they aren't obnoxious.

Could always put Bugs Bunny on the job:

giphy.gif
 
How is this different from the reconstruction era, when the states were put under military districts until they created new constitutions and approved of the "civil war amendments"? How was that constitutional? The reconquered states didn't have senators in congress during that time.
 
How is this different from the reconstruction era, when the states were put under military districts until they created new constitutions and approved of the "civil war amendments"? How was that constitutional? The reconquered states didn't have senators in congress during that time.
Because said states had quite voluntarily deprived themselves of their own senatorial representation, and the changes were the price of re admission.
 
Top