It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I got a question regarding the united states union

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:45 AM
i got a general question regarding the states in the united states.

Regarding united states as far as i understand the basic (US consititution) all states are sovereign ?

if one states decides to cecede out of the union is that possible ? is this a real risk in the united states ?

and what reactions might happen ?

(i know my english isnt that good and the question might even seem stupid but i am just a courious european that tries too understand our friends over the pond)

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:51 AM
There is no legal or proper way to leave the union - this was why the American civil war was fought, to preserve the union.

Ending slavery was just a happy byproduct really.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:53 AM
reply to post by Rufuz

In 1861 a Civil War began in the United States because several Southern States attempted to succeed from the Union. There was, of course, more to it than that, but several Southern States did attempt to succeed and the Northern States put a stop to it. This Civil War led directly to the 13th Amendment, a necessary one that put an end to slavery in the U.S., and the 14th Amendment, perhaps the most atrocious piece of legislation any Congress ever passed in the U.S. and the strengthening of the federal government was the result, and that federal government has grown to epic proportions now, engaging in empire building, running roughshod all over the American people, North, Central, and South, in any which way they please.

Succession today would be met with major force by that federal government, and if several states attempted to succeed simultaneously, a second Civil War would no doubt ensue.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:12 AM
Technically, states can still secede from the United States as a whole, or in reality, from the Federal Government which is the governing body of the entire United States. States, however, can also secede in other ways, such as breaking off from other states, only to remain part of the U.S., just as a "new" state.

Much of the talk about seceding however is just that and is more of a political stand than a true form of separation from the United States as a whole.

It should also be noted that the Constitution allows every level of government to secede -- from a city, county, or state level.

The word secession can refer to political separation at different levels of government organization, from city to state to country; this list focuses on secession from U.S. states, particularly to form new U.S. states.

Article IV of the United States Constitution provides for the creation of new states of the Union, requiring that any such creation be approved by the legislature of the affected state(s), as well as the United States Congress.

Since the formation of the current Constitution, only two states have technically seceded from another existing state: Maine and West Virginia. In the latter case, West Virginia formed itself as the legitimate government of Virginia within the Union, then essentially gave itself permission to leave Virginia in order to avoid annexation by the Confederacy.

The one thing that many overlook however is that the Constitution requires that both the state(s) it affects, as well as Congress, to approve of such an action.

The desire of a state to secede, and a refusal by Congress to permit such a thing, could technically result in a civil war, although it is highly doubtful unless there are a large enough number of states that band together.

However, given the current scope of the Federal Government [read: growth over the last few decades, not in reference to Obama], it is not all that easy a task. Although there are different levels of seceding, most people think of it in terms of a complete separation from the rest of the United States and in turn, the Federal Government.

The problem of course lies in funding, military protection, etc. For a state to fully leave the US, no federal funding would be sent which puts a huge financial 'hole' in the current states' budget. Which are for the most part completely upside down at this point and in the red.

Could it technically be done? Yes.

However, I believe it to be entirely improbable unless you were to see a large number of states banding together. In which case, you would end up with a smaller "country", not isolated states running entirely on their own budgets and funding, which in my opinion is a much harder task at this juncture.


The above also goes on to say what states, and what portions of states, have tried seceding in the past. California for example, has tried more than 25 times to split up. In the 1950's, there were several states that had issues and tried to move forward with seceding not from the United States as a whole, but rather from the state that they were then a part of.

It's a rather interesting read in my opinion.

As recently as the 1980's, New Jersey came very close to separating the Southern counties from the rest of Jersey. As with most of these initiatives, it is driven by money: lack of funding, lack of decent tax rates, poor road conditions, etc. In that particular case, all counties approved the secession but one, hence the initiative failed. It did however result in a sudden influx of funding from the governor in order to address that area's concerns at the time. Which frankly, was really the goal all along.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:19 AM
reply to post by Rufuz

if one states decides to cecede out of the union is that possible ?

Yes, it is possible. If it happened though, the federal government wouldn't just sit idly by and watch.

is this a real risk in the united states ?

No, I don't think so. The states all get a lot of money from the federal government for various things. If they leave the union, that'd be gone.

Another reason it wouldn't happen is because of families. There are many families who have members living all over the country. If a state were to secede, it would then become more difficult to see grandma and grandpa (assuming they, or you, live in a state that seceded). Many people wouldn't like, or want, the break up of families that would occur.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:25 AM
Vermont is currently the only U.S. state with any force behind its' independence movement, that is... for now.

Vermont Republic

Vermont Passes Resolution To Secede From The US
(Resolution passed in 2005)

13% support Vermont secession

Well we could learn soon whether or not a state can secede.

According to what I read in the Constitution as long as both chambers of the state legislature approve a measure declaring independence and the governor signs it they can legally secede.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Misoir

According to what I read in the Constitution as long as both chambers of the state legislature approve a measure declaring independence and the governor signs it they can legally secede.

I believe it also has to be approved by Congress, which is where the bill would ultimately fail.

Unless of course the Federal Government would want to allow Vermont [insert any 1 state] and then use them as the whipping boy / poster child for "why" states shouldn't secede. But I believe that's doubtful.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:47 AM
Long Answer:

It has been said that when the southern states joined the union, they would have never done so if the matter of their sovereignty, and thus their freedom to leave the union, had been stated in such a manner as to exclude the possibility.

The southern states feared the 'radicalization' of the north (and not in any small part, the growing force behind the abolitionist movement.

Rather than ignore the issue as Buchanan had done, Lincoln made the integrity of the Union the centerpiece of his political campaign, and successfully, though painfully, established that the Federal government has the authority to forcefully reject secession as part of any state's sovereign right.

Therefore secession is not an option... which is to say that the federal government can use force to avoid the dissolution of the union.

This however is not something that legislators cannot challenge. Perhaps someday they will.

Texas, being a Republic, is another candidate to 'realistically' challenge the overarching Federal control of the states.

While our politician celebrities and their political masters have created corporate citizens on the back of the 14th ammendment, they have increasingly maneuvered the political machinery to make ALL party members of either side of the republican/democrat coin a consolidated singularity. The final result is that there is virtually NO state government which can function without the consent and support of the political parties who are entrenched in the federal halls of power.

Short answer: No, secession is not a realistic approach to dealing with disagreements between a state and the federal government.

.....but if a majority of states decided to move to 'eject' the federal government, well, that could be a different scenario altogether.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:54 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

the 14th amendment was the odjective of the "civil war". make no mistake, there was alot going on back then regarding the "jew/zionist"..JEFFERSON DAVIS was a true american..I implore everyone to read about him.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:17 AM
reply to post by Rufuz

Good day friend,
many of the people replying to you have been fed many lies about the civil war..
1.) look into the anti jew laws and rhetoric in the 1800's.
2.) learn of the articles of CONFEDERATION!!. anyone spouting off about the constitution are the brain dead. recall this-- the CONFEDERATE states, the articles of confederation was written with the declaration of independence! anyone who believes the story about how the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION was flawed or hastily drawn up are STOOGES. our founders planned tirelessly for years in secret, debating and studying about how their government would function.
3.) the MASSIVE immigration waves post 1869 compared to pre 1865. in order to dilute the country, destroying the chances of a civil war 2.
4.) most people came here after the civil war. they, and their ancestors WERE NOT here previous to 1860. they all believed the lies in the history books. it is not their faults, they were mostly uneducated, poor and desperate/gullible. BUT they are filled with arrogance about their "knowledge" of history. only listen to those whose family was here since before 1776. mostly scotch-irish-english-scandinavian people.

i hope this doesn't offend anyone as I mean not to offend just brutal honesty about how far we have slipped

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 01:52 PM
You will get many answers depending on ones education level.

The Treaty of 1783 is key to answering this question:

Article 1

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

These sovereign independent states created the U.S. constitution & the Federal Government. It was not the federal Government that created the states.

The Constitution that created the Union is a compact (an agreement) Rhode Island did not immediately join the Union through ratification, & they could have chosen not to be a part of it.

The federal government destroyed states rights as a by product of the civil war.

The states can leave the union by voting to do so, but expect Fedzilla to use force in subjugating the states in order to keep the the modern day version of slavery rolling; economic slavery via banks.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by zzombie]

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Rufuz

Succession today would be met with major force by that federal government, and if several states attempted to succeed simultaneously, a second Civil War would no doubt ensue.

I doubt it.

US federal troops would not fire upon National Guard troops.

It would never happen today.

The state would secede and the US military would let it happen regardless of what tyrannical orders the president gave to prevent it.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 02:06 PM
If you want to learn more about State's rights and sovereignty, Dr. Tom Woods has a presentation that's worth watching:

Google Video Link

[edit on 8-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:16 PM
reply to post by mnemeth1

What makes you think the federal government would rely on The U.S. Military to quash succession?

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:37 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:53 PM
In the late 1700's, the United States was a loose confederation of independent states much like the European Union is today. Two events in US history shifted power away from state governments and led to a strong centralized federal government.

The first event was the Civil War. As others in this thread stated, the Civil War led to legislation like the 14th amendment which strengthened the federal government. The next event was the New Deal. After the New Deal, the Federal Government not only grew, but its power increased at the expense of the state governments' powers.

If history repeats itself, it would not surprise me if the European Union became a single nation like the United States is within our lifetimes. We are seeing the EU become more and more influential each year.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by hotpinkurinalmint]

new topics

top topics


log in