Secession of a Territory

I don't know what the full process is, but last November Puerto Rico voted to see what the island's future would be. The choice was A) Become a sovereign nation, B) Become a state, C) No change.

They voted to become a state, FWIW (the previous many elections, they voted for no change). It might be a place to start researching.

The US has granted independence to a few territories. The Philippines in 1946, ironically after shooting the Hell of the islands in 1899 to prevent their independence. The Micronesian Trust Territory became independent (or something like that) after being under direct US administration.

The thing that stands out, is the independence is on US terms. The federal gov't determines the economic relationship (economic aid, free trade, etc), political relationship (the new government is a US ally), and usually gets some military bases.

So it has happened, but not against the will of the US.

It would be different for the Yukon than for U.S. territories, and I don't know how it would work.

The states of the United States of America are socereign states that have lent some of their sovereignty to the federal government.

Sovereign means self-governing, and federal means allied or alliance.

The territories are different, because they are not recognised as sovereign entities, so I suspect that they would have to fight.

King Neptune said:

It would be different for the Yukon than for U.S. territories, and I don't know how it would work.

The states of the United States of America are socereign states that have lent some of their sovereignty to the federal government.

Sovereign means self-governing, and federal means allied or alliance.

The territories are different, because they are not recognised as sovereign entities, so I suspect that they would have to fight.

Click to expand...

You know, the states took that line of reasoning in 1861. It didn't work out quite like they expected.

Dave Hardy said:

You know, the states took that line of reasoning in 1861. It didn't work out quite like they expected.

Click to expand...

Only because Lincoln didn't take the oath of office seriously.

King Neptune said:

Only because Lincoln didn't take the oath of office seriously.

Click to expand...

Well, you know what they say, hold on to those Confederate dollars...

Spy_on_the_Inside said:

Texas is an actually, official state, but suppose a territory (like Puerto Rico, Yukon, or Guam) wanted to secede.

Click to expand...

The Yukon is not a U.S. possession. As has been mentioned, Puerto Rico regularly has elections to send a message of preference to the U.S. Congress, which has final say. The last one expressed a preference for statehood, but it's unlikely to happen any time soon, given the absolute opposition of one of the major political parties.

Main point would be, you just can't say "We wanna" and join, any more than you can say "Bye-bye" and leave. It would have to be approved by Congress.

caw

There is considerable rhetorical argument on this issue (secession). The US Constitution is actually silent on the point; and the US Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. White (ca. 1870) fails to specifically articulate or resolve the underlying issue(s).

Texas and Hawaii are unique in that both were independent nations prior to being granted US statehood.

Here's a pretty succinct (and thankfully brief) analysis...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_Texas_secede_from_the_union

ironmikezero said:

There is considerable rhetorical argument on this issue (secession). The US Constitution is actually silent on the point; and the US Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. White (ca. 1870) fails to specifically articulate or resolve the underlying issue(s).

Texas and Hawaii are unique in that both were independent nations prior to being granted US statehood.

Here's a pretty succinct (and thankfully brief) analysis...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_Texas_secede_from_the_union

Click to expand...

That's an interesting link. I suspect that had secession been litigated in the Supreme Court the 1860s might be remembered differently. Of course this was not too long after Andrew Jackson said, "The Supreme Court has made it's decision, now let them enforce it." (or something like it.) I daresay the Civil War & Reconstruction were notable for a lot of things being done in a hurry and justified later.

The question of Lincoln's whimsical approach to his oath of office notwithstanding, it is recorded history that the one time states seriously tried to secede they were militarily crushed by the full might the Federal government could muster.

In contrast the Philippines were granted full independence peacefully in 1946 (after being battered into submission in 1898) and the Pacific Trust Territory became several independent states & a commonwealth in the 197s-80s. Puerto Rico routinely gets asked its opinion on independence.

I stand by my assertion that it is a lot easier for a territory to become independent than a state.

ironmikezero said:

There is considerable rhetorical argument on this issue (secession). The US Constitution is actually silent on the point; and the US Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. White (ca. 1870) fails to specifically articulate or resolve the underlying issue(s).

Texas and Hawaii are unique in that both were independent nations prior to being granted US statehood.

Here's a pretty succinct (and thankfully brief) analysis...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_Texas_secede_from_the_union

Click to expand...

The original thirteen states also were fully independent before becoming part of the U.S.A.

A number of years ago I researched the matter of secession and related. What I found was that legal opinion came down in favor of secession, and that was especially true during and immediately after the War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance.

King Neptune said:

The original thirteen states also were fully independent before becoming part of the U.S.A.

A number of years ago I researched the matter of secession and related. What I found was that legal opinion came down in favor of secession, and that was especially true during and immediately after the War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance.

Click to expand...

I guess the Confederacy should've had you for a lawyer.

Given that in your no doubt well-researched opinion, it is easier for a state to secede than a territory, how come no states have managed the thing that the Philippines, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau did? Was Aguinaldo that much better a general than Lee? What does Palau have that Alabama doesn't?

Dave Hardy said:

What does Palau have that Alabama doesn't?

Click to expand...

A coral reef.

caw

blacbird said:

A coral reef.

caw

Click to expand...

Yeah, who got the best deal on that one?


Where's the smilie for hula girls?

Dave Hardy said:

I guess the Confederacy should've had you for a lawyer.

Given that in your no doubt well-researched opinion, it is easier for a state to secede than a territory, how come no states have managed the thing that the Philippines, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau did? Was Aguinaldo that much better a general than Lee?

Click to expand...

The Philippines are a special case, because the U.S.A. took possession as a temporary step with the promise that independence would be granted when the territory was capable of self-rule. That war was put across as evidence that the Philippines were not ready for independence, and it is a complicated story.

What does Palau have that Alabama doesn't?

Click to expand...

The U.S. was only granted temporary possession most of the Pacific Trust territories after WWII. It was expected that they would be granted independence at some point, but the date for that was not stated at the onset. On the other hand, Alabama is a sovereign state that has the sovereign right to go its own way at any time. Have you ever considered what "soverein" means?

The only serious proposal for secession since the War between the States was completed has been this present proposal in Texas. There are few reasons for most states to leave the alliance, so why would they?

King Neptune said:

The only serious proposal for secession since the War between the States was completed has been this present proposal in Texas.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that's true. I thought I read a story recently that several such petitions had been presented. There exists a protocol for doing so, which suggests that it's not particularly uncommon. It got newsworthy primarily because the backers in Texas wanted to to be so.

King Neptune said:

There are few reasons for most states to leave the alliance, so why would they?

Click to expand...

Including Texas, for all manner of reasons. Which is why the vast majority of residents of Texas think these petitioners are mainly nutcases.

Up here in Alaska, we actually have an Alaska Independence which advocates for what the name stands for. It has been used on occasion by certain Republican candidates as a vehicle for running against other Republican candidates they don't like, and once in a while they succeed (Governor Walter Hickel, back in the early 1990s). Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, has had a dalliance with the AIP.

They're less active today than they were a while back, because the colorful and bizarre founder, a man named Joe Vogler, disappeared about a decade ago. The AIP folks tried hard to make this a political assassination, with (of course) the Federal Government behind it. Turned out he was murdered in a simple robbery, and his body buried in the woods near the remote place where he lived. The killer confessed, and led authorities to the corpse.*

Most of us think the AIP is full of nutcases, too.

caw

*Of course that story could be part of TVC (The Vast Conspiracy).

King Neptune said:

The Philippines are a special case, because the U.S.A. took possession as a temporary step with the promise that independence would be granted when the territory was capable of self-rule. That war was put across as evidence that the Philippines were not ready for independence, and it is a complicated story.



The U.S. was only granted temporary possession most of the Pacific Trust territories after WWII. It was expected that they would be granted independence at some point, but the date for that was not stated at the onset. On the other hand, Alabama is a sovereign state that has the sovereign right to go its own way at any time. Have you ever considered what "soverein" means?

The only serious proposal for secession since the War between the States was completed has been this present proposal in Texas. There are few reasons for most states to leave the alliance, so why would they?

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of what the word means. Sadly, sovereign ain't what it used to be.

I suppose in some whistling Dixie fantasy Alabama could just exercise it's sovereignty and depart the union.

The proposal in Texas is not serious. On the whole I'd say it's not even as serious as the Republic of Texas guys back when McLaren was raising a stink. He was willing to go to jail for his beliefs, and Mike Matson was willing to die for them. Signing an internet petition isn't in the same league, not when it has fewer signatories than people who watched the Kardashian wedding. (Can the Kardashians secede? Please?)

The fact remains that the only units of the US that have done so were trust territories and areas that were offered independence at a future date. Which is pretty much the point I was making. Until a state successfully exercises its sovereignty to secede from the US, that scenario remains in the realm of fantasy, moreover a fantasy which suffered a decisive check in the real world.

This forum is not to rah-rah your pet theories, but to offer some actual perspective to questions.

blacbird said:

I don't believe that's true. I thought I read a story recently that several such petitions had been presented. There exists a protocol for doing so, which suggests that it's not particularly uncommon. It got newsworthy primarily because the backers in Texas wanted to to be so.



caw

Click to expand...

I believe that the procedure was established to give nutcases to impression that they were being heard.

Dave Hardy said:

This forum is not to rah-rah your pet theories, but to offer some actual perspective to questions.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is my thought also.

Hey, cool it folks. Please answer the question posed and don't make judgments on other people's opinions.