The Dakota split happened with statehood. Officially, the populations of the two state were pretty cleanly divided…but as a practical matter, the GOP wanted an extra 2 safe Senate seats / 3 safe electoral votes at a time where the D’s were regaining power.
It did not; even if the South won as @soyleche suggested.
The armed conflict started due to the North requiring all “federal property” (primarily, all military equipment, especially small firearms, cannons, and naval ships) be returned to the North once the South declared succession. If the South acquiesced, I think things would look extremely different today.
One might debate what the North would’ve done in that case (the South would essentially have been defenseless); but that also suggests that the conflict was not settled definitely.
And what was determined after the Civil War was that “the court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union” (link to Supreme Court case supporting the statement in the above linked quote is below).
Since the Constitution only provides a requirement for joining the Union and is silent on leaving, I think there is an avenue for a state to secede (that is, an Act of Congress could accomplish it), but I would agree that it would be extremely unlikely to be done.
VA was the only state to split because of the Civil War, which Busy_Bee mentioned.
Texas v. White, 74 US 700 - Supreme Court 1869 - Google Scholar
1 Like
Note that I don’t think a state splitting–and both states remain members of the Union–is exactly the idea of secession that Busy_Bee was getting at. However, that process is one where I can see a state leaving the Union could be followed.
But I think the biggest reason that a set of states seceding the Union is a terrible idea is that those states are going to be ripe for Chinese and/or Russian take over and placing the rest of the US in a very perilous position defensively.
1 Like
The premise that anything a state could do before the Constitution it can also do after the Constitution, unless explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Yes, there is the tenth Amendment, but if a state can’t secede, then it seems unlikely that part of a state can secede.
And perhaps we should reconsider the Maine, Virginia and NC cases in connection with whether a state, on its own, could permit part of itself to leave the US. Was any part of those states removed from the jurisdiction of the US at the time it ceased being part of the state? Right after the signing of the declaration of independence, was there a jurisdiction of the US that some parcel of land could leave?
Mods, please create a “non-funny state split discussion” thread.
Thank you.
2 Likes
In most of the comments on this subject, there seems to be the assumption that the Constitution could never be changed to accommodate state secession. I suppose that is a valid assumption.
Can never be changed? No, amendments can do that. Likely to ever be changed to accommodate secession? No, not likely at all.
Mods, do your stuff!
I think this is different from the Quebec secession discussion. Eastern Oregon wants to leave Oregon, not the U.S. Quebec wants to leave Canada.
Just want to say, great work Mods, let’s keep the humor threads humorful AND/OR on topic.
Aside from the reasons for 1861 South Carolina secession from the US, SC created a serious technical issue by taking possession of “stuff” that the rest of the U.S. (as represented in D.C.) claimed possession of. That dispute started the war.
Ninth Amendment, maybe, but most times lawyers try to invoke it, their arguments are denied. Discussion then starts as to who “the people” are. Do Representatives count (as they seemed to do with 1860’s secessions, not sure there was any popular vote)? How about a governor alone?
Wouldn’t it be in both parties’ interest for, say, California and New York to secede? As countries, these two states would have economies that would be among the world’s top ten in size and they would have permanent governance by Democrats. Conversely, the Republicans would have a permanent GOP President and Congress in the country that remains. Sounds like a win-win?
And a win for my province of BC if Washington and Oregon combine with California and BC in Cascadia. The natural trading relationships for Canadian provinces have always been with their southern counterparts rather than with their Canadian ones.
As countries, they’d then have to protect themselves. From whom I don’t know. Vermontites?
Their seceding doesn’t help Democrats in other states.
Also, NoCal (actually inland CA, east of The San Andreas/Calavaras Fault) would probably decide to be their own country.
1 Like
The split in the US is not so much by state as it is by rural-urban.
If CA left the US because the US has gone too Trumpy, then some CA counties will want to leave CA and stay with the US. Kind of like the Virginia counties during the Civil war.
Good map here: Map: How California voted in the 2024 and 2020 election – NBC Los Angeles
Here’s Oregon and Washington:
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/oregon/
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/washington/
1 Like
It is largely the same in Canada. Cascadia should probably be a 100 mile strip along the Pacific coastline from BC to Southern California.
Yeah. Just ask Bolivia how it feels to lose access to a convenient coastline: that is what a lot of US states would experience.
I mean, the short answer is no. There is no legal process for any state to leave the union.
Every once in a while, you hear people from rural areas of “blue” states talking about how their vote doesn’t count and they want to break off in their own state. Which is a terrific idea if you want to give the rural minority an unbeatable majority.
Huh? I’m not following your point here.