Louisiana petitions Obama for secession.

[Kestrel]

SeerSGB wrote:

---

You're one of them! Holds up a picture of Coach Dooley, back, back I say!

Poor Dooley. I feel like a spoiled and unpleasable fanbase has been shit to him since Day 1 and he's never gotten the support he deserves.

[Alidar Jarok]

propita wrote:

---

Alidar, I have a platonic crush on you! Or maybe it's just your mind. I love reading your arguments.

You are going to be GREAT in a courtroom! The judges will love your supporting arguments.

Aw thanks. I blame lawschool (for making me bored enough to want to keep thinking through these arguments ).

[BillJ]

How would that work?

Current day Louisiana is pretty much completely made up of land bought by the Federal Government. Would they have to buy all the land in order to secede?

[T'Girl]

If Puerto Rico were to become a independent nation, I would have trouble seeing them being "charged" for land prior to their departure. So why would Louisiana?

The Federated States of Micronesia were not (apparently) charged anything stemming from their departure.

[Kegg]

I definitely think there are circumstances when a peaceful divsion of a country is beneficial (think the Velvet Revolution, where Czechoslovakia amicably divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia) but these petitions honestly sound like the American right-wing equivalent to the threat of left-wingers to leave the country for Canada if Bush got re-elected.

Only less practical.

[Locutus of Bored]

T'Girl wrote:

---

If Puerto Rico were to become a independent nation, I would have trouble seeing them being "charged" for land prior to their departure. So why would Louisiana?

The Federated States of Micronesia were not (apparently) charged anything stemming from their departure.

Louisiana is not under the same arrangement as Puerto Rico or Micronesia (at least, not yet, in Puerto Rico's case), so it's not an apt comparison. And I don't see Louisiana seceding under amicable circumstances where the government would be inclined to be generous.

[Alidar Jarok]

T'Girl wrote:

---

If Puerto Rico were to become a independent nation, I would have trouble seeing them being "charged" for land prior to their departure. So why would Louisiana?

Puerto Rico has sufficiently different circumstances to not make this an apples to apples comparison. They already owned the land when they were independent of the United States. There was no state of Louisiana independent of the United States and the overwhelming majority of people who live there are descendants of US settlers.

Hawaii or Texas might be arguably closer to Puerto Rico than Louisiana, but there's still the difference that Puerto Rico is not integrated so there's no disruption from severing it.

[Squiggy]

T'Girl wrote:

---

If Puerto Rico were to become a independent nation, I would have trouble seeing them being "charged" for land prior to their departure. So why would Louisiana?

The Federated States of Micronesia were not (apparently) charged anything stemming from their departure.

Puerto Rico would have never been a state, much like Micronesia, which was only administered by the US for two years after WWII...like Germany or Japan.

The Federal government bought all of Louisiana from the French Empire in 1803 (Louisiana Purchase, look it up). The Federal government was then positioned by the residents of the Louisiana Territory to become a state.

The one example you just gave were of lands that were "won" in battle and the other was as apt as comparing it to Berlin.

Stop making stupid comparisons. Every one of these comparisons you've posted has been more stupid than the last.

The United States is NEVER going to allow any state to secede. End of story.

[Unicron]

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

Puerto Rico has sufficiently different circumstances to not make this an apples to apples comparison. They already owned the land when they were independent of the United States. There was no state of Louisiana independent of the United States and the overwhelming majority of people who live there are descendants of US settlers.

What about the land belonging to the original thirteen states? If, just for the sake of argument, one or more of them wanted to leave and if it could somehow be done fairly easily and amicably, would those states have any claim to land or resources they possess under the current system? And if the Union holds that newly admitted states have the same standing and rights as older states, could they make the argument that such an arrangement would be due to them if they wanted to leave?

I see what you're saying, I'm just a little skeptical about the claim that a newly independent state can't claim territory if it never existed independently of the Union before.

[T'Girl]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

Louisiana is not under the same arrangement as Puerto Rico or Micronesia ...

Admittedly no, but no state has ever left the union, so there no direct example to point to. The closest parallel we might have is a American territory separating to become a independent nation of it's own.

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

... Puerto Rico is not integrated so there's no disruption from severing it.

Most likely there would be disruption if a state left.

And I don't see Louisiana seceding under amicable circumstances where the government would be inclined to be generous.

I understand there was animosity when the Republic of Ireland was created, the British got over it.

Perhaps Louisiana (and any other states that separate) and what remains of the Federal government can form something like The Commonwealth of Nations (mostly the old British Empire). While independent nations, we will still share a common history, culture and society. Just not share a common government.

Don't see any reason the American Football league wouldn't continue as before. Not American citizens, but still Americans.

Squiggy wrote:

---

The Federal government was then positioned by the residents of the Louisiana Territory to become a state.

And if they get enough Louisiana citizens behind this petition, the reverse could happen. The matter would go to the states, the American people would let their opinion be heard, and a decision would be made.

The way it should happen.

Every one of these comparisons you've posted has been more stupid than the last.

It okay Squiggy, for people to hold different opinions, I don't happen to agree with yours.

But you can of course have them.

The United States is NEVER going to allow any state to secede. End of story.

Time will tell. Historically, countries have divide before.

Unicron wrote:

---

What about the land belonging to the original thirteen states?

Following the revolution, the thirteen original colonies, became thirteen separate sovereign countries. The articles of confederacy didn't make them one country, that happen later with the constitution.

[Roger Wilco]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

Louisiana is not under the same arrangement as Puerto Rico or Micronesia (at least, not yet, in Puerto Rico's case), so it's not an apt comparison. And I don't see Louisiana seceding under amicable circumstances where the government would be inclined to be generous.

I can't think of any scenario where it would be remotely conceivable for Lousiana to secede under non-amicable terms.
And with that I don't mean it's likely for secession to happen amicably, just that a non-amicable secession is even more improbable.

[Alidar Jarok]

Unicron wrote:

---

What about the land belonging to the original thirteen states? If, just for the sake of argument, one or more of them wanted to leave and if it could somehow be done fairly easily and amicably, would those states have any claim to land or resources they possess under the current system? And if the Union holds that newly admitted states have the same standing and rights as older states, could they make the argument that such an arrangement would be due to them if they wanted to leave?

Well, just a little bit of history and then I'll give my answer.

The Commonwealth of Virginia started as a colony founded by the Virginia Company based on a charter from the Queen or King (I think the charter was under Elizabeth, but the first permanent settlement was under James I). The charter gave them what we know as Virginia, plus Kentucky, West Virginia, and what was called the Northwest Territory (essentially the Ohio River Valley, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, parts of Michigan). I'd have to check, but it might have been given land all the way to the Pacific coast.

When the Revolution took place and they declared themselves independent states, there were obviously some conflicts over who got this territory. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and probably a few others all felt they were entitled to the Northwest Territory. To resolve this dispute, all the states agreed to cede this land to the federal government. Over the years, other land has been ceded to the federal government for military bases, government facilities, etc. If Virginia were to secede, they would not be entitled to this land any more than they would be entitled to Ohio. Now this is different from whether they would be allowed to secede at all. As I mentioned earlier, Virginia entered the Articles of Confederation, which said the union would be permanent. However, if the situation were grave enough to be comparable to that of the American Revolution, I'm not one to rule out absolutes.

T'Girl wrote:

---

Most likely there would be disruption if a state left.

That's a bit naive, isn't it? After all, we're talking about an integrated economy. You mentioned one area taken as a given that clearly won't be. Just using Louisiana as an example, a sovereign nation generally is recognized to have a certain maritime border. States are not recognized to have this border. This leaves a stretch of water currently owned by the United States not in Louisiana. If Louisiana were to become a sovereign nation, they might want this territory. Currently, the United States has this territory and they have a certain expected revenue that comes from leasing this territory and another set of revenue that comes from the taxes of the US companies that drill there. Furthermore, those US companies are used to certain Federal laws applying and, where Louisiana law conflicts, Louisiana law is preempted. There's a benefit to that certainty that would go away were the federal government to lose jurisdiction over the area.

I understand there was animosity when the Republic of Ireland was created, the British got over it.

You realize a time period known as "the Troubles" that has led to violence that continues to this very day is probably not the best example of "amicable circumstances," right?

[Unicron]

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

When the Revolution took place and they declared themselves independent states, there were obviously some conflicts over who got this territory. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and probably a few others all felt they were entitled to the Northwest Territory. To resolve this dispute, all the states agreed to cede this land to the federal government. Over the years, other land has been ceded to the federal government for military bases, government facilities, etc. If Virginia were to secede, they would not be entitled to this land any more than they would be entitled to Ohio. Now this is different from whether they would be allowed to secede at all. As I mentioned earlier, Virginia entered the Articles of Confederation, which said the union would be permanent. However, if the situation were grave enough to be comparable to that of the American Revolution, I'm not one to rule out absolutes.

That makes sense, given that most of that disputed land has since become parts of other states. I will admit that, on a personal level, the manner in which West Virginia defined separate borders between it and Confederate Virginia has always struck me as a little strange, albeit not necessarily illegal. I suppose one might argue it was a convenience of war in some respects.

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, it's unarguably a convenience of war. Many states had large groups of population that were still loyal to the union and no better example exists than Virginia, where the Appalachian area was overwhelmingly pro-union. However, it's equally clear that they were not the legitimate government of Virginia because they only represented a small minority of Virginians (if they were the majority, Virginia wouldn't have seceded). The Constitution says that a new state cannot be formed from the territory of an old state without its permission, so there had to be a legal fiction where a new government of Virginia was recognized and that government then consented to let part of its territory (the part the new government was located in) to form a new state. Regardless of result, it's hard to argue it followed the spirit of the law.

That being said, it does demonstrate the difficulty of secession. Once you can establish that disagreements between winning and losing groups in a democracy are sufficient to justify secession, you open yourself up to counter-secession by any group that disagrees with the majority in the newly seceded state.

[TheGodBen]

T'Girl wrote:

---

I understand there was animosity when the Republic of Ireland was created, the British got over it.

Eh, we got kicked out of the Commonwealth for it as they didn't allow republics at that time, but we didn't really take part at that point so nobody much cared. It wasn't that acrimonious.

Unless you actually meant to refer to the creation of the Irish Free State, which was a negotiated settlement between the leaders of the IRA and the British government, one which came after two years of war, and one which forced the IRA to renounce their loyalty to the revolutionary Irish Republic and agree to remain part of the British Dominion. The result was a brief civil war, the creation of a second Irish nation marred by discrimination and violence for most of its history, decades of governments seeking to undermine the British Dominion to allow Ireland to leave and become a republic, a campaign of economic warfare, and a long-term relationship of animosity and distrust between the governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom that has only been resolved in the last 20 years.

Squiggy is right, you need to stop posting comparisons to historical events because they are increasingly undermining the point you're trying to make.