What if the Right of Secession had been made explicitly and clearly legal in the U.S. constitution?
- Thread starter LNSS
- Start date
What he said. The US falls apart quickly, because an explicit right of secession means that individual states can threaten secession whenever there is a policy they don't like in order to extract concessions, which brings you right back to the Article of Confederation's requirement for near unanimity to get anything done.
Not to mention states actually seceding.
Not to mention states actually seceding.
The United States would grow and prosper until the 1840's and 1850's, when slavery became intolerable; at least, in the eyes of the majority. The forces that tripped the Civil War might come sooner, causing Southern states to secede. There would be some fighting, but not the full-blown Civil War we remember. South Carolina would claim Fort Sumter, and the Union forces would have a constitutional obligation to leave. Then you might have the issue of compensation over federal territory, so there would be conflict. Eventually, the Union states would amend the Constitution to prohibit secession. There would most likely be a Confederacy, and they would get the territories of OK, NM and AZ. There might be a territory "trade" to give the Confederacy the Interstate 8 corridor and access to the Pacific Ocean: trade San Diego and Southernmost CA for West Virginia.
Grimbald
Monthly Donor
What if....
The amendment made leaving the Union much more difficult. Super majority of both the state legislature and a vote of the enfranchised citizens followed by a one year waiting period and a re-vote on the same terms. Only then could a state leave. An exiting state would get all federal property within its borders back but would be responsible for its share (based on population in the last census) of federal debts.
The amendment made leaving the Union much more difficult. Super majority of both the state legislature and a vote of the enfranchised citizens followed by a one year waiting period and a re-vote on the same terms. Only then could a state leave. An exiting state would get all federal property within its borders back but would be responsible for its share (based on population in the last census) of federal debts.
Last edited:
The civil war was not about slavery but about trade customs duties and taxes.
The idea that an express right to secession (which most constitutionalists say was not necessary since it was obvious) would quickly lead the US to fall apart is very debatable.
Poland-Lituania did not fall apart because of its liberal veto alone but because it was surrounded by imperialist powers that could manipulate the liberum veto to their advantage and finally to break Poland-Lituania up.
And the US was not surrounded by hostile imperialist powers that wanted to seize opportunities to grab parts or all of its territory.
The idea that an express right to secession (which most constitutionalists say was not necessary since it was obvious) would quickly lead the US to fall apart is very debatable.
Poland-Lituania did not fall apart because of its liberal veto alone but because it was surrounded by imperialist powers that could manipulate the liberum veto to their advantage and finally to break Poland-Lituania up.
And the US was not surrounded by hostile imperialist powers that wanted to seize opportunities to grab parts or all of its territory.
FALSE -
Have you read any of the secession legislation that passed by the states that formed the CSA? If not, I suggest that you read them.
Thank You,
MrBill
Skallagrim
Banned
Before everything derails: I think the USA would be just fine for quite some time, although it would remain far more decentralised. If secession had been included (we must assume that including it is a given, and something therefore desired) then the question becomes: on what terms? And the answer would be contsted, and as with every single other issue, we'd get a compromise between those who want those superajorities and those re-votes, and the other side, who want 'whenever a majority of Legislature votes for it, BYE'. And the ultimate conditions would likely be something like "the legislature must approve, but following a special election, so the people can weigh in that way" or "the legislature must approve with a supermajority" or "the legislature must approve, and there must be a pleibiscite". Some method that makes it neither exceptionally difficult nor extremely easy.
I assume that some kind of method for settling matters of federal debt will be included. Note that the option of secession makes a high federal debt unlikely anyway. Federal debts were very limited for a long time anyway, only skyrocketing in more recent times. In this 'secession ATL', a situation whereby certain states want to increase federal spending and fund it with a debt, states vehemently opposed can simply threaten secession to ensure they don't get stiffed with the bill... when they secede. (Irony right there.) So again, the threat of secession looming over the federal government will p[robably ensure that the USA stays pretty decentralised, as it originally was.
This does not mean that the USA is somehow doomed. Not by any means. There will be some disagreements about the proper role of the federal government, and the decentralism-minded states will block every centralist proposal, which will ultimately prompt the more centralist states to simply start working closer together on a sub-national level. The fact that slavery isn't threatened means that centralism-versus-decentralism doesn't become north-versus-south to the extent it did in OTL. Because, yes, there was a big component of "states' rights" to the Southern cause, but that mentality had orginally become so tied to the Southern cause because it could keep the federal government from... interfering with slavery. If the federal government is much, much weaker for much, much longer... then not all Southern power-players will be decentralist, and there will conversely be more decentralist tendencies in certain Northern states.
Still, the issue of slavery is going to be an issue, and at some point, one side is going to secede. The South if the North tries to amend the Constitution, the North if the south succeeds in blocking all such attempts. Seems to me that the big fault of the USA's history has always been slavery, and that there's nothing inherently wrong or destructive about secession.
I assume that some kind of method for settling matters of federal debt will be included. Note that the option of secession makes a high federal debt unlikely anyway. Federal debts were very limited for a long time anyway, only skyrocketing in more recent times. In this 'secession ATL', a situation whereby certain states want to increase federal spending and fund it with a debt, states vehemently opposed can simply threaten secession to ensure they don't get stiffed with the bill... when they secede. (Irony right there.) So again, the threat of secession looming over the federal government will p[robably ensure that the USA stays pretty decentralised, as it originally was.
This does not mean that the USA is somehow doomed. Not by any means. There will be some disagreements about the proper role of the federal government, and the decentralism-minded states will block every centralist proposal, which will ultimately prompt the more centralist states to simply start working closer together on a sub-national level. The fact that slavery isn't threatened means that centralism-versus-decentralism doesn't become north-versus-south to the extent it did in OTL. Because, yes, there was a big component of "states' rights" to the Southern cause, but that mentality had orginally become so tied to the Southern cause because it could keep the federal government from... interfering with slavery. If the federal government is much, much weaker for much, much longer... then not all Southern power-players will be decentralist, and there will conversely be more decentralist tendencies in certain Northern states.
Still, the issue of slavery is going to be an issue, and at some point, one side is going to secede. The South if the North tries to amend the Constitution, the North if the south succeeds in blocking all such attempts. Seems to me that the big fault of the USA's history has always been slavery, and that there's nothing inherently wrong or destructive about secession.
Sulemain
Banned
The Liberum Veto also prevented much needed internal reform to the PLC. There is a reason the 3rd of May Constitution abolished it.
I hate to wade into the discussion on what is likely a self-derailing thread, but I've seen arguments that it was normally assumed before the Civil War (itself a name chosen by the victors) that states could secede.
There is evidence for this. The main one is that without this assumption, the secession of the Confederate states themselves makes little sense, particularly the four that seceded after Fort Sumter, because the secession in that case was pretty explicitly done on the grounds that the federal government did not have the right to compel the first six back into the union using violence. There is also the issue that secession was considered by the New England states at one point, and the only constitutional basis for there being no right to secede post civil war was a rather off-hand Supreme Court ruling.
So I am in the camp that nothing would have changed. Lincoln would have found another legalistic justification for his policies. He could have argued that the secession was not done in the form laid out by the article, for example.
There is evidence for this. The main one is that without this assumption, the secession of the Confederate states themselves makes little sense, particularly the four that seceded after Fort Sumter, because the secession in that case was pretty explicitly done on the grounds that the federal government did not have the right to compel the first six back into the union using violence. There is also the issue that secession was considered by the New England states at one point, and the only constitutional basis for there being no right to secede post civil war was a rather off-hand Supreme Court ruling.
So I am in the camp that nothing would have changed. Lincoln would have found another legalistic justification for his policies. He could have argued that the secession was not done in the form laid out by the article, for example.
I don't think it would have necessarily caused the USA to fall apart quickly but it would definitely lead to a weaker federal government if states could threaten to leave whenever they didn't like what the federal government was doing. Still, I think that states probably wouldn't be as quick to secede as some people assume - they would need to feel really threatened, not just have disagreements on routine matters. I agree that slavery would be the issue most likely to result in a breakup, but there would be no grounds for war so slavery would last longer.
Have you ever READ the Declarations of Secession by the states that bothered to publish them?
Google them. Then come on back.
I don't think it would have made it as far as
1831. The New England states would have
said "bye bye!" during the War of 1812.
This means that the constitution has a process for secession? Or it enshrines the general right of secession without any comment or process?
So which places had populations that were eager to leave the Union but couldn't?
Can the natives use this to keep the United States out of their sovereign land?
So which places had populations that were eager to leave the Union but couldn't?
Can the natives use this to keep the United States out of their sovereign land?