Should states be allowed to secede? Join another country?
Posted by vhu9644@reddit | AskAnAmerican | View on Reddit | 52 comments
An argument I see thrown regarding acquiring Greenland is that Greenlanders should be allowed to decide if they want to become American. As of now, there isn't a legal right for a state to leave the union. Should there be one? Could states decide to join another country? What about for another country to purchase a state?
ShermansMasterWolf@reddit
I would be lying if I said this idea didn't garner a bit of sympathy from me. From the perspective of a free and fair election that showed the super majority of a state wanted succession.
However, I'm also a bit against it as well. The US is in an advantaged position, and it would be detrimental to everyone, including those who succeeded, if the continent would fracture even more.
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
Do you think greenlanders should get to secede from Denmark and Join the U.S.?
ShermansMasterWolf@reddit
Applying the principle that people should have the right to self determination, yes. They are an established people with defined history, and established borders.
Applying my knowledge of their own constitution, yes. I believe they have the right under Danish law to hold a referendum to become independent. Once independent they could become a state just like Texas did.
Would like to clarify that they shouldn't be coerced into it. Would love to see them be added to the US, but not at the expense of our national character.
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
So what's the difference between Greenland, and, say, Texas? Why does one get the right to self determination and not the other?
ShermansMasterWolf@reddit
In practical and legal terms, the outcome of the US civil war. Before the Civil War, the constitution was kinda mute on the subject of secession. It was less than clear this succession was outlawed by the constitution, but still implied. After the war, it was made more clear that secession was unconstitutional.
However, Greenland constitution explicitly has provisions for a fully legal seccession.
I would argue, that the natural rights outlined in the declaration of independence supercede all.. but it's basically the equivalent of grabbing your buddies and a bunch of guns and saying "make me." It's also academic as no one in Texas really wants secession, I would put the number as single digit percentage.
I think I get your thought though, all examples should, in principle, be treated the same. In that vein could be said the South in the Civil War had the superior LEGAL argument (although the worse moral one by a large margin). The only real counterweight to that (if we're looking at all sides), is that each state took a vote to join the union they couldnt leave in the first place.
All this makes me think of a starship troopers quote, "When you vote you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence, the supreme authority from which all others flow." Are the lines on maps worth the violence, the cost of violence on human lives, and the cost of initiating violence on your reputation and character?
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
Right. I think we’re very selective about who has the right to self determination. You’d see the same people support Catalonia independence while rejecting independence of most U.S. territories.
Ultimately I wouldn’t want to see the dissolution of the union. But it’s strange to me how unevenly people seem to apply this right to self determination, especially in cases that would harm their own country
Ok_Gas5386@reddit
I’d say any non-state territory of the U.S. should be allowed to leave if they want, and maybe Hawaii and Alaska, too. The contiguous 48, no way. If any of them leave the union it’s a threat to the other 47.
For the record, I think the agitation over Greenland is a stupid Trump ego project. Officials of the United States should not be publicly lusting for the territory of allied countries. But I do think it’s a principle that territories outside the national core can leave if they want.
darksideofthemoon131@reddit
In what way? I'm in MA, too, and my values don't reflect the incoming administration. We as a state also pay more to the federal governments than we receive back, basically supporting states that are economically weaker than us. Those states we support typically are the ones that have very contrasting values. If the US is heading towards a project 25 value system, then I want out. I would say about 70% of the population would agree.
Why can't we leave? If a majority of the population aren't happy, don't we have a right to petition for our beliefs and values? I'd say we are more of a threat being in the US to them if we no longer share common values and disagree with the laws. There should've been an out-clause put into the constitution.
The anti-Federalists gave us the Bill of Rights as a compromise for ratification of the Constitution. If they could see how important that would be to us in the next 4 years, they'd be proud.
They'd also be saying they were right in fighting against a centralized government. We are on the brink of seeing all their fears come true. I don't want violence, but if there were a peaceful, sensible option for leaving, I'm all for it.
Ok_Gas5386@reddit
If freedom genuinely goes by the wayside in the United States, where do you think Massachusetts will run to? How will we feed ourselves? Who will protect us? How will we build a better world for our children? How valuable will our universities and our technology companies be as the world goes to hell?
darksideofthemoon131@reddit
You should be reading the news. A Canadian politician proposed to states interested that they'd take them. Although this is all political blustering, the concept is gaining traction.
I personally would prefer a separate New England, and that includes possibly integrating the Canadian Maritime provinces.
We establish trade through other countries, just like the rest of the world. The idea is that we would not cut ourselves off from the rest of the US. It's not a no-contact. Whether they'd be willing to trade back is the question, but there are other resources. I think our neighbors to the north would be very helpful given the current climate.
Our infrastructure is good, our resources vast. I don't think it would be easy, but this part of the US has some of the most educated people in the world concentrated in one area. We as 6 states typically rate top in healthcare, education, quality of life and safety. We are at the lowest rates in gun violence, and other social "ills." If MA was it's own country, we would rank 3rd in the world on the HGI scales.
There are things we'd need to face and they aren't easy- establishing a military, losing businesses that have federal ties, etc...If the US left NATO, that'd be an option for help. The way the incoming administration is burning bridges, they'd be more than willing to help. It's all what ifs, but there are more people seeking this contingency with fears that it's all going to go to shit over the next few years.
Check out /r/RepublicofNE and /r/newengland where the idea is being discussed regularly. I've been on for about 6 years now and the discussions have gone from what ifs to how recently.
stonerpasta@reddit
Greenland has lots of resources and they don’t want to be a part of the Danish government. It’s not for an ego trip. Look it up yourself
Ok_Gas5386@reddit
Right I guess that’s where we’re at, just waiting for the ice shelves to melt so we can gleefully plunder the resources underneath. That’s the mentality in A.D. 2025.
If the Greenlanders want out from Denmark then that’s between the two of them, it has nothing to do with us at this point. If Greenland decides to become an independent country, then we can deal with them as members of the international community.
Denmark, i can’t stress this enough, IS AN ALLIED COUNTRY. They went with us to Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The fact people support this perfidy just for the chance to color in the map is so disappointing.
stonerpasta@reddit
It’s also their decision if they want to join us
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
What did you think about the catalan independence movement? If they had voted to for independence in 2019, should they have been allowed to form their own country?
For the record I think Trump is just blustering as a distraction, and I think the rhetoric is dangerous, but I see on reddit people who legitimately want us to acquire Greenland and think such a deal should be possible. I'm just curious what people here think the limits of self determination are and what makes such a thing valid.
Another user brought up autonomous territories being the reason Greenland can secede. Should, for example, the Cherokee nation be allowed to secede/get purchased by another country?
Ok_Gas5386@reddit
I don’t have strong feelings about Catalan separatism one way or another, it’s not my country.
You mean the Cherokee nation in Oklahoma? Existing as an entirely landlocked enclave within the United States? It doesn’t seem especially practical for them to be entirely independent, the erection of an international customs border there would hurt everyone. I’d think we would rather make some sort of deal if they were agitating for independence, which to my knowledge they’re not.
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
Yea, just trying to bring up an analogous example for sake of conversation. Was just wondering what you thought of it.
Yea, I think they're happy with their autonomy.
travelinmatt76@reddit
No, states should not be allowed to secede
ShermansMasterWolf@reddit
This isn't very Texan of you /s
kidmock@reddit
Sure. Been happening throughout history. Sometimes through peaceful and equitable negotiations. In recent history, you can look to Brexit and Czechoslovakia. Sometimes it's considered and rejected (See Quebec). But most of the time, it's through conflict and conquest.
You want to do it peacefully through a popular up swell? Cool, let's talk the terms.
You want to use violence? Good luck with that. The only difference between a revolution and civil war is who wins.
stonerpasta@reddit
If there was a civil war going on, the legal right to secede or not will not matter. It can happen, regardless of its legality or not. Like it wasn’t legal for American colonists to rebel against the British Empire during the American Revolutionary War. If Trump wasn’t elected this time, I believe a war like that would have happened for sure
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
Right, but I disagree that there would be a civil war had Kamala won.
stonerpasta@reddit
Dude, a lot of MAGA people would be super pissed
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
Pissed doesn't mean they're gonna go up against the U.S. military lol.
stonerpasta@reddit
Trust me. They absolutely would have.
RnBvibewalker@reddit
I don't understand these questions about succession.
Do you want to live in a war torn country while missiles fly past your head? Because that's what would happen.
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
Eh, was just surprised a bunch of Americans were fine with trying to acquire greenland (or panama), and was curious what we thought about self determination and its limits.
RnBvibewalker@reddit
Only Americans who "want" Greenland are those who perpetually listens to Trump and follows whatever he say and those who foolishly think it with have an impact on their day to day lives because of "resources".
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
Right, but it doesn't hurt to figure out what people think outside my bubble. Reddit isn't the best place, but its easy and will reach people outside my bubble.
Longjumping-Oil-7419@reddit
Greenland is a territory, that's why it's different. A better question would be could the US just sell Puerto Rico
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
Well, then should a native American autonomous territory be allowed to leave or join another nation?
Why does self determination end at autonomous territory?
dcgrey@reddit
"Territory" in this context has a specific meaning. One like Puerto Rico is an "unincorporated territory" as defined in the territorial clause of the U.S. constitution. Native lands instead are considered domestic dependent nations. The latter is fully recognized as part of the U.S.; the latter less so, as the constitution defines territories.
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
Right, but surely Denmark and Greenland don't define their territories the same way we do. I don't see why domestic definitions of territory has any bearing on if a territory should be subject to self determination.
dcgrey@reddit
Those definitions are going to matter then, in which case r/AskAnAmerican isn't a great option, since nearly all of us can comfortably speak only about the American experience with territories and experiments with other autonomy...and we'll obviously focus on the "autonomy" attempts of the U.S. Civil War.
A more generalized question would be better for some kind of legal subreddit.
Ana_Na_Moose@reddit
That is the more interesting question imo.
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
That more interesting question probably doesn't exactly fit this sub.
Ana_Na_Moose@reddit
Why wouldn’t it?
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
I assume you meant the latter, and I think it's a geopolitics question not really unique to America. No reason why it should be asked here.
Recent-Irish@reddit
I don’t think there’s any state with an actual widespread popular secessionist movement so it’s a non-issue.
darksideofthemoon131@reddit
Maybe not widespread, but they're gaining steam. The New England Independence movement and Cascadia are both gaining headway over the last 5 years, and they're also gaining more news coverage since the most recent election.
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
True, but it comes up. For example, I remember a couple low-support California movements to independence. California is a state that a lot of countries may like.
Recent-Irish@reddit
Did any of those have any support besides a knee jerk reaction to Trump being elected?
vhu9644@reddit (OP)
According to poling in 2016, there was 23% support from a sample of 800. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_California
Recent-Irish@reddit
Sample of 800 conducted a few days after Trump was elected? Disregard the poll lol.
xRVAx@reddit
Not anymore. We settled this in 1865.
AskAnAmerican-ModTeam@reddit
Thank you for your submission, but it was removed as it violates posting guideline "Check the FAQ and the sidebar prior to submitting your question."
This includes commonly asked questions, questions related to current events, or topics easily answered through a simple Google search.
If you have questions regarding your submission removal - please contact the moderator team via modmail.
StanUrbanBikeRider@reddit
Yes, but that would require a constitutional amendment, so it’s not going to happen.
RnBvibewalker@reddit
No.
Fun_East8985@reddit
No
Blond_Treehorn_Thug@reddit
No and no
We already settled this. Had a war and everything
ZachMatthews@reddit
We worked out the answer to this in 1865, Beauregard. Stop trying to make secession happen. It’s not going to happen.
ComesInAnOldBox@reddit
There was a war fought over that already, you might have heard a thing or two about it. I'm pretty sure there was a movie about it, or at least a miniseries.
AutoModerator@reddit
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.
If you see any comments that violate the rules, please report it and move on!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.