Secession in the United States

Secession in the United States can refer to secession of a state from the United States, secession of part of a state from that state to form a new state, or secession of an area from a city or county.

Attempts at or aspirations of secession from the United States have been a feature of the country's politics since its birth. Some have argued for a constitutional right of secession and others for a natural right of revolution. The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

The one serious secession movement was defeated in the American Civil War. In 1860-1861, eleven of the fifteen southern states where slavery was legal declared their secession from the United States and joined together as the Confederate States of America. It collapsed in 1865 after losing the war with the northern states.

A 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believed that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic."

American Revolution

The Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Historian Pauline Maier argues that this sentence “asserted one right, the right of revolution, which was, after all, the right Americans were exercising in 1776.” The chosen language was Thomas Jefferson’s way of incorporating ideas “explained at greater length by a long list of seventeenth-century writers that included such prominent figures as John Milton, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke, as well as a host of others, English and Scottish, familiar and obscure, who continued and, in some measure, developed that ‘Whig’ tradition in the eighteenth century.

This right to revolution in the Declaration was immediately followed with the observation that long practiced injustice is tolerated until serious, sustained assaults to the rights of the entire people accumulated to oppress them, then they could defend themselves. This justification had antecedents in the Two Treatises, 1690, Fairfax Resolves, 1774, Summary Views, 1774, Virginia Constitution, 1776, and Common Sense, 1776.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; ... mankind are more disposed to suffer, ... than to right themselves by abolishing the forms ... accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing ... a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

Gordon S. Wood quotes John Adams, “Only ‘repeated, multiplied oppressions’ placing it beyond all doubt ‘that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties,’ could warrant the concerted resistance of the people against their government.”

Antebellum American political and legal views on secession

Overview

The issue of secession was discussed in many forums, and even advocated in the North and South, in the years before the American Civil War. With origins in the question of states' rights, preceding the Nullification Crisis, historian Maury Klein describes the contemporary debate: "Was the Republic a unified nation in which the individual states had merged their sovereign rights and identities forever, or was it a federation of sovereign states joined together for specific purposes from which they could withdraw at any time?" He observes that "the case can be made that no result of the war was more important than the destruction, once and for all ... of the idea of secession".

Historian Forrest McDonald argues that after the adoption of the Constitution "there were no guidelines, either in theory or in history, as to whether the compact could be dissolved and, if so, on what conditions". However during "the founding era, many a public figure . . . declared that the states could interpose their powers between their citizens and the power of the federal government, and talk of secession was not unknown." However in order to avoid the resort to violence that was necessary in the Revolution, the Constitution intended, according to McDonald, to establish "legitimate means for constitutional change in the future." In effect, the Constitution "completed and perfected the Revolution."

Whatever the intentions of the Founders, secession and threats of disunion were a constant in the political discourse leading up to the Civil War. Historian Elizabeth Varon writes that

... one word [disunion] contained, and stimulated, their [Americans] fears of extreme political factionalism, tyranny, regionalism, economic decline, foreign intervention, class conflict, gender disorder, racial strife, widespread violence and anarchy, and civil war, all of which could be interpreted as God's retribution for America's moral failings. Disunion connoted the dissolution of the republic -- the failure of the Founders' efforts to establish a stable and lasting representative government. For many Americans in the North and the South, disunion was a nightmare, a tragic cataclysm that would reduce them to the kind of fear and misery that seemed to pervade the rest of the world. And yet, for many other Americans, disunion served as the main instrument by which they could achieve their political goals.

Secession from the Articles of Confederation

The United States was governed under the Articles of Confederation for most of the American Revolution and the first few years afterwards. Amendments to the Articles required unanimous consent of the states. The Congress under the Articles authorized a convention to propose changes to the Articles, leading to the drafting of the United States Constitution as a replacement for, rather than an amendment to, the Articles. Instead of submitting the Constitution to Congress where it would require unanimous approval, the proposed Constitution required only the ratification of nine of the thirteen states in order to initiate government under the Constitution. Only states ratifying the Constitution would be included in the new government. For a time, 11 of the states operated under the Constitution without the non-ratifying states of Rhode Island and North Carolina.

Since the Articles spoke of a perpetual union, various arguments have been presented to explain the apparent contradiction and illegality in abandoning (or seceding from) one government and creating another that did not include all of the members of the original. One explanation was simply that the situation under the Articles was their failure to protect the vital interests of the states. Necessity, rather than legality, was the relevant factor.

Historian John Ferling wrote that by 1786 the Union under the Articles was falling apart. Founders such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton believed that stability was needed in order to protect both property and commerce. Both favored a stronger central government. He wrote:

Rumors of likely secessionist movements were unleashed. There was buzz as well that some states planned to abandon the American Union and form a regional confederacy. America, it was said, would go the way of Europe, and ultimately three or four, or more confederacies would spring up. ... Not only would these confederations be capable of taking steps that were beyond the ability of Congress under the articles, but in private some portrayed such a step in a positive light, in as much as the regional union could adopt constitutions that secured property rights and maintained order.

Other explanations focus on the Articles of Confederation as an international agreement between sovereign states as opposed to a consolidation that “totally annihilated, without any power of revival” the sovereign states. The Articles required that all states were bound to comply with all requirements of the articles. Permanence was linked to compliance. Emmerich de Vattel, at the time a recognized authority on international law, wrote that “Treaties contain promises that are perfect and reciprocal. If one of the allies fails in his engagements, the other may ... disengage himself in his promises, and ... break the treaty.” This argument was relied on by proponents of the Constitution and was featured by James Madison in Federalist No. 43.

Some argue that this secession from the Articles was a legal precedent for future secessions from the Constitution. For example, St. George Tucker, a respected jurist in the early republic era, wrote in 1803:

And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, we may infer that the right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties."

Others deny that a precedent was set. Akhil Reed Amar writes:

The fact that a new union was lawfully formed in the 1780s by secession from the old confederacy did not mean that a new confederacy could be lawfully formed in the 1860s by secession from the old union. ... Writing in 1824, exactly midway between the fall of the Articles of Confederation and the rise of a second self-described American Confederacy, Marshall summarized the issue nicely: "Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

Others argue that the language of “perpetual union” from the Articles carried forward into the Constitution. Historian Kenneth Stampp writes:

Lacking an explicit clause in the Constitution with which to establish the Union’s perpetuity, the nationalists made their case, first, with a unique interpretation of the history of the country prior to the Philadelphia Convention; second, with inferences drawn from certain passages of the Constitution; and third, with careful selections from the speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers. The historical case begins with the postulate that the Union is older than the states. It quotes the reference in the Declaration of Independence to “these united colonies, “contends that the Second Continental Congress actually called the states into being, notes the provision for a perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation, and ends with the reminder that the preamble to the new Constitution gives as one of its purposes the formation of “a more perfect Union.”

Secession and Adoption of the United States Constitution

Constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar argues that the permanence of the United States changed significantly when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the adoption of the United States Constitution. This action “signaled its decisive break with the Articles’ regime of state sovereignty.” By creating a constitution instead of some other type of written document, it was made clear that the United States was:

Not a “league”, however firm; not a “confederacy” or a “confederation”; not a compact among “sovereign’ states”—all these high profile and legally freighted words from the Articles were conspicuously absent from the Preamble and every other operative part of the Constitution. The new text proposed a fundamentally different legal framework.

Patrick Henry represented a strong voice for the Anti-Federalists who opposed adoption of the Constitution. Questioning the nature of the new political organization being proposed, Henry asked:

The fate ... of America may depend on this. ... Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. ...

The Federalists would point out that Henry exaggerated the extent that a consolidated government was being created and acknowledged that states would continue to serve an important function even though sovereignty had been transferred to the American people as a whole. However, on the issue of whether states retained a right of unilateral secession from the United States, the Federalists made it clear that no such right would exist under the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers, a primary source for interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, described in detail the dangers of disunion. Hamilton used stark language in Federalist 6 to predict that disunion would lead to war, much as occurred constantly in continental Europe.

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.

Hamilton repeated his of disunion in Federalist 7, predicting that if America lacked a strong union it would "be gradually entangled in all the pernicious labyrinths of European politics and wars." Madison echoed these fears in Federalist 41, observing that peace on the American continent depended on distance from Europe and a strong union. Disunion would lead to large standing armies and war much as occurred in Europe.

Natural right of revolution versus right of secession

Debates on the legality of secession often looked back to the example of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence. Law professor Daniel Farber defined the borders of this debate:

What about the original understanding? The debates contain scattered statements about the permanence or impermanence of the Union. The occasional reference to the impermanency of the Constitution are hard to interpret. They might have referred to a legal right to revoke ratification. But they equally could have referred to an extraconstitutional right of revolution, or to the possibility that a new national convention would rewrite the Constitution, or simply to the factual possibility that the national government might break down. Similarly, references to the permanency of the Union could have referred to the practical unlikelihood of withdrawal rather than any lack of legal power. The public debates seemingly do not speak specifically to whether ratification under Article VII was revocable.

In the public debate over the Nullification Crisis the separate issue of secession was also discussed. James Madison, often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution”, spoke out against secession as a constitutional right. In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification, Madison discussed “revolution” versus “secession”:

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.

Also during this crisis, President Andrew Jackson, in his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, made the case for the perpetuity of the Union while also contrasting the differences between “revolution” and “secession”:

But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.

In the midst of the secession crisis that would lead to the Civil War, President James Buchanan in his final State of the Union speech acknowledged the South, “after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union”, but he also reiterated the difference between “revolution” and “secession”:

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.

Alien and Sedition Acts

John Taylor of Caroline pushed for Virginia's secession at the time of the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts and his participation in the Republican response—the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions—demonstrated how seriously he took the reserved rights of secession and interposition (nullification) belonging to the States. Thomas Jefferson also communicated to James Madison his conviction in "a reservation of the rights resulting to us from these palpable violations [the Alien and Sedition Acts]" and, if the federal government did not return to "the true principles of our federal compact," he was determined to "sever ourselves from that union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness." Jeffersonian Republicans were not alone in claiming "reserved rights" against the federal government. During the War of 1812, Federalist Founding Father, Gouverneur Morris (a Hamilton ally) stated that "secession, under certain circumstances, was entirely constitutional."

New England Federalists and Hartford Convention

The election of 1800 saw Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party on the rise with the Federalists in decline. Federalists became alarmed at what they saw as threats from the Democratic-Republicans. The Louisiana Purchase was viewed as a violation of the original agreement between the original thirteen states since it created the potential for numerous new states that would be dominated by the Democratic-Republicans. The impeachment of John Pickering, a Federalist district judge, by the Democratic-Republican dominated Congress and similar attacks by the Democratic-Republican Pennsylvania legislature against that state's judiciary further alarmed Federalists. By 1804, the viable base of the Federalist Party had been reduced to the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Delaware.

A few Federalists, led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, considered the creation of a separate New England confederation, possibly combining with lower Canada to form a pro-British nation. Historian Richard Buell, Jr., characterizes these separatist musings:

Most participants in the explorations—it can hardly be called a plot since it never took concrete form—focused on the domestic obstacles to consummating their fantasy. These included lack of popular support for such a scheme in the region. ... The secessionist movement of 1804 was more of a confession of despair about the future than a realistic proposal for action.

The Embargo Act of 1807 was seen as a threat to the economy of Massachusetts and in late May 1808 the state legislature debated how the state should respond. Once again these debates generated isolated references to secession, but no clear cut plot ever materialized.

Spurred on by some Federalist party members, the Hartford Convention was convened on December 15, 1814, to address both the opposition to the War of 1812 (which lasted until 1815) and the domination of the federal government by the Virginia political dynasty. Twenty six delegates attended—Massachusetts sent 12 delegates, Connecticut seven, and Rhode Island four. New Hampshire and Vermont decided not to send delegates although two counties from each state did send delegates. Historian Donald R. Hickey noted:

Despite pleas in the New England press for secession and a separate peace, most of the delegates taking part in the Hartford Convention were determined to pursue a moderate course. Only Timoth Bigelow of Massachusetts apparently favored extreme measures, and he did not play a major role in the proceedings.

The final report addressed issues related to the war and state defense and recommended seven constitutional amendments dealing with "the overrepresentation of white southerners in Congress, the growing power of the West, the trade restrictions and the war, the influence of foreigners (like Albert Gallatin), and the Virginia dynasty's domination of national politics."

Massachusetts and Connecticut endorsed the report, but the war ended as the states' delegates were on their way to Washington, effectively ending any impact the report might have had. Generally the convention was a "victory for moderation", but the timing led to the convention being identified as "a synonym for disloyalty and treason" and was a major factor in the sharp decline of the Federalist Party.

Abolitionists

William Lloyd Garrison—“Henceforth, the watchword of every uncompromising abolitionist, of every friend of God and liberty, must be, both in a religious and political sense—‘NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS’”

Sectional tensions, with the North and New England pictured as the victims of a slaveholders’ conspiracy, arose again in the late 1830s and 1840s over the related issues of Texas Annexation, the Mexican–American War, and the expansion of slavery. Isolated voices of separation from the South were again heard. Historian Joel Sibley writes of the beliefs held by some leaders in New England:

Texas annexation, the abolitionist Benjamin Lundy argued when the issue first arose in 1836, was “a long premeditated crusade—set on foot by slaveholders, land speculators, etc., with the view of reestablishing, extending, and perpetuating the system of slavery and the slave trade,” John Quincy Adams had made a similar argument on the floor of the House of Representatives then. Other expressions of the same theme—or accusation—had been heard throughout the decade that followed, whenever Texas was mentioned.

In the May 1844 edition of The Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison wrote "Address to the Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the United States." In this strongly disunionist editorial, Garrison wrote that the Constitution had been created “at the expense of the colored population of the country”. With southerners continuing to dominate the nation because of the Three-fifths compromise, it was time “to set the captive free by the potency of truth” and “secede from the government.” on the same day that this issue was published, the New England Anti-Slavery Convention endorsed the principles of disunion from slaveholders by a vote of 250–24.

From this point on, with the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso into the public debate, talk of secession would be primarily a southern issue. The southern theme, increased perceptions of helplessness against a powerful political group attacking a basic southern interest, was almost a mirror image of Federalist beliefs at the beginning of the century.

South Carolina

During the presidential term of Andrew Jackson, South Carolina had its own semi-secession movement due to the 1828 "Tariffs of Abomination" which threatened both South Carolina's economy and the Union. Andrew Jackson also threatened to send federal troops to put down the movement and to hang the leader of the secessionists from the highest tree in South Carolina. Also due to this, Jackson's vice president, John C. Calhoun, who supported the movement and wrote the essay "The South Carolina Exposition and Protest", became the first US vice-president to resign. South Carolina also threatened to secede in 1850 over the issue of California's statehood. It became the first state to declare its secession from the Union on December 20, 1860, with the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union and later joined with the other southern states in the Confederacy.

Confederate States of America

  States under CSA control

  States and territories claimed by CSA without formal secession or control

See main articles Origins of the American Civil War, Confederate States of America and American Civil War.

The most famous unsuccessful secession movement was the case of the Southern states of the United States. Secession from the United States was declared in eleven states (and failed in two others); they joined together to form the Confederate States of America (CSA). The eleven states of the CSA, in order of secession, were: South Carolina (seceded December 20, 1860), Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee (seceded June 8, 1861). Secession was declared by its supporters in Missouri and Kentucky, but did not become effective as it was opposed by their pro-Union state governments. This secession movement brought about the American Civil War. The position of the Union was that the Confederacy was not a sovereign nation, but that a rebellion had been initiated by individuals. Historian Bruce Catton described President Abraham Lincoln's April 15, 1861, proclamation after the attack on Fort Sumter, which defined the Union's position on the hostilities:

After reciting the obvious fact that "combinations too powerful to be suppressed" by ordinary law courts and marshalls had taken charge of affairs in the seven secessionist states, it announced that the several states of the Union were called on to contribute 75,000 militia "...to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed." ... "And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peacefully to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Supreme Court rulings

Texas v. White was argued before the United States Supreme Court during the December 1868 term. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase read the Court's decision, on April 15, 1869. Australian Professors Peter Radan and Aleksandar Pavkovic write:

Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States.

However, the Court's decision recognized some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States".

In 1877, the Williams v. Bruffy decision was rendered, pertaining to civil war debts. The Court wrote regarding acts establishing an independent government that "The validity of its acts, both against the parent state and the citizens or subjects thereof, depends entirely upon its ultimate success; if it fail to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it; if it succeed and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation."

Historian Kenneth Stampp notes that a historical case against secession had been made that argued that "the Union is older than the states" and that "the provision for a perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation" was carried over into the Constitution by the "reminder that the preamble to the new Constitution gives us one of its purposes the formation of 'a more perfect Union." Concerning the White decision Stampp wrote:

In 1869, when the Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, finally rejected as untenable the case for a constitutional right of secession, it stressed this historical argument. The Union, the Court said, "never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation." Rather, "It began among the Colonies. ...It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation."

Texas secession from Mexico

The Republic of Texas successfully seceded from Mexico in 1836. Mexico refused to recognize Texas as an independent country, but the major nations of the world did. In 1845, Congress admitted Texas as a state. Contrary to popular myths, the documents governing Texas' accession to the United States of America do not mention any right of secession—although they did raise the possibility of dividing Texas into multiple states inside the Union. Mexico warned that annexation meant war and the Mexican–American War followed in 1846.

Secessions from a state

Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions reads: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. Some of the movements to partition states have or do identify themselves as "secessionist" movements.

Kentucky

After the American Revolution, the counties of Virginia beyond the Appalachian Mountains became known as Kentucky County. Eventually, the residents of Kentucky County petitioned for a separation from Virginia. Ten constitutional conventions were held in the Constitution Square Courthouse in Danville between 1784 and 1792. In 1790, Kentucky's delegates accepted Virginia's terms of separation, and a state constitution was drafted at the final convention in April 1792. On June 1, 1792, Kentucky became the fifteenth state to be admitted to the union.^{[citation needed]}

Tennessee

Eight counties of western North Carolina (and now part of Tennessee) broke off from that state in the late 1780s and formed the abortive State of Franklin. Efforts to obtain admission to the Union failed, and the counties had re-joined North Carolina by 1790. North Carolina ceded the area to the federal government in 1790, after which it was organized into the Southwest Territory. Tennessee was admitted to the Union in 1796 as the 16th state. It was the first state created from territory under the jurisdiction of the United States federal government.^{[citation needed]}

Maine

Maine was originally an exclave of Massachusetts. Long-standing disagreements over land speculation and settlements led to Maine residents and their allies in Massachusetts proper forcing an 1807 vote in the Massachusetts Assembly on permitting Maine to secede; the vote failed. Secessionist sentiment in Maine was stoked during the War of 1812 when Massachusetts pro-British merchants opposed the war and refused to defend Maine from British invaders. In 1820 Maine voted to secede from Massachusetts, and the secession and formation of the state of Maine occurred in 1820 as part of the Missouri Compromise, which also geographically limited the spread of slavery and enabled the admission to statehood of Missouri the following year.

West Virginia

During the course of the American Civil War, the western counties of Virginia making up what is now West Virginia seceded from Virginia (which had joined the Confederacy) and became the 35th state of the U.S. Specifically, Unionist leaders in Wheeling set up a new state government for Virginia that was recognized by Washington. The new Virginia state government in turn voted to allow the western counties to secede. They did so, wrote a constitution, and were admitted to the Union as West Virginia. Support for the Confederacy and the Union was about evenly divided in the new state and guerrilla war lasted until 1865.

51st state proposals and movements

Main article: List of U.S. state secession proposals

There have been a number of 51st state proposals and movements whose goal is to secede from a current state and form a new state, still within the United States:

• The book Lost States describes several examples including the proposed states of Absaroka, Deseret, Lincoln, Texlahoma and Transylvania.

• Various groups of advocates in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan—alone or in combination with those in northern Wisconsin and northeast Minnesota—have since 1858 made calls for the establishment of a separate state called "Superior".

• In 1977, political representatives on the islands of Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and the Elizabeth Islands considered secession from Massachusetts, some even threatening secession from the United States if their requests were not recognized. However, eventually they settled for better representation in the Massachusetts legislature.

• In March 2008, the comptroller of Suffolk County, New York, once again proposed for Long Island to secede from New York State, citing the fact that Long Island gives more in taxes to the state than it receives back in aid. Numerous movements call for the partition of New York into western New York, upstate New York, New York City and/or Long Island.

Jeff Stone's proposal for the new state of South California highlighted in red.

• California has a long history of attempted state secession movements. Southern California attempted three times in the 1850s to achieve a separate statehood or territorial status from Northern California. The last attempt, the Pico Act of 1859, was passed by the California State Legislature, signed by the State governor John B. Weller, approved overwhelmingly by voters in the proposed Territory of Colorado and sent to Washington, D.C. with a strong advocate in Senator Milton Latham. However the secession crisis following the election of Lincoln in 1860 prevented the proposal from ever coming to a vote. Other attempts in the last century include that of the State of Jefferson of 1940–41, the 1965 proposal of a new state of Southern California south of the Tehachapi mountains, and the current day "Inland" and "Coastal" California state proposals in the late 2000s.

• In February 2011, a political committee made up of attorneys formed to put a proposal that Pima County, Arizona secede from the rest of the state before county voters in 2012. This 51st state would be named Baja Arizona.

• In June 2011, Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone called for Riverside, Imperial, San Diego, Orange, San Bernardino, Kings, Kern, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa and Mono Counties (see map at right) to separate from California to form the new state of South California. State officials responded derisively, with governor Jerry Brown's spokesman issuing the statement "What is this, 1860?" and fellow supervisor Bob Buster calling Stone "crazy," suggesting "Stone has gotten too much sun recently."

• The Washington State Legislature on several occasions has considered measures to split the state in two: Western Washington and Eastern Washington, the border being along the Cascade Mountains. Reasons given are climate, population and politically related.

1980s-present efforts

The late 20th and early 21st centuries have seen examples of local and state secession movements. All such movements to create new states have failed.

City secession

There was an attempt by Staten Island to break away from New York City in the late 1980s and early 1990s, leading to a 1993 referendum, in which 65% voted to secede. Implementation was blocked in the State Assembly by assertions that the state's constitution required a "home rule message" from New York City.

The San Fernando Valley lost a vote to separate from Los Angeles in 2002 but has seen increased attention to its infrastructure needs.^{[citation needed]} Despite the majority (55%) of the valley within the L.A. city limits voting for secession, the city council unanimously voted to block the partition of the valley north of Mulholland Drive. If the San Fernando Valley became a city, it would be the seventh largest in the United States, with over one million people.^{[citation needed]}

Other attempted city secession drives include Killington, Vermont, which has voted twice (2005 and 2006) to join New Hampshire; the community of Miller Beach, Indiana, originally a separate incorporated community, to split from the city of Gary in 2007; Northeast Philadelphia to split from the city of Philadelphia; and the rejection of annexation of what was the unincorporated area of West Indio from Indio, California.^{[citation needed]}

A portion of the town of Calabash, North Carolina voted to secede from the town in 1998 after receiving permission for a referendum on the issue from the state of North Carolina. Following secession, the area incorporated itself as the town of Carolina Shores. Despite the split, the towns continue to share fire and emergency services.

County secession

Main article: List of U.S. county secession proposals

In U.S. history, many counties have been divided, often for routine administrative convenience, although sometimes at the request of a majority of the residents. During the 20th century, over 1,000 county secession movements existed, but since the 1950s only three have succeeded: La Paz County, Arizona, broke off from Yuma County and the Cibola County, New Mexico, effort both occurred in the early 1980s, while during 1998–2001 there was a transition by Broomfield, Colorado, to become a separate jurisdiction from four different counties.^{[citation needed]}

Prior to these, the last county created in the U.S. was Menominee County, Wisconsin, in 1959. The problem with Menominee County was an act to replace the Menominee Indian Reservation from 1961 to its restoration in 1973. Another case is Osage County, Oklahoma, when the county was meant to replace the Osage tribal sovereignty, and the BIA declaration of it being a "mineral estate" not a sovereign tribal group nor the state's only Indian reservation in 1997.^{[citation needed]}

The High Desert County, California, plan to split the northern half of Los Angeles and the eastern half of Kern counties, was approved by the California state government in 2006, but was never officially declared in force. The state rejected the approval due to inaction of any establishment of county government in 2009.^{[citation needed]}

In 2010, southern Cook County, Illinois are petitioning to create "Lincoln County", to protest the dominance of Chicago. The county's possible largest city is Calumet City, Illinois, and only 600,000 out of 5.03 million Cook County residents live south of Chicago.^{[citation needed]}

Also there's a movement for the southeastern portion of Maricopa County, Arizona called to secede and establish "Mesa County" for Mesa, to complain about the county government mainly focuses on Phoenix instead of the entire county.^{[citation needed]}

State secession

Some states have movements which see secession from the United States itself and the formation of a nation from one or more states.

• Alaska: In November 2006, the Alaska Supreme Court held in the case Kohlhaas v. State that secession was illegal, and refused to permit an initiative to be presented to the people of Alaska for a vote. The Alaskan Independence Party remains a factor in state politics.^{[citation needed]}

• California secessionism - This was discussed by involved grassroots movement parties and small activist groups calling for the state to secede from the union, they met in a pro-secessionist meeting in Sacramento on April 15, 2010 to discuss advancing the matter. Source: http://zocalopublicsquare.org/

• Florida: The mock 1982 secessionist protest^{[citation needed]} by the Conch Republic in the Florida Keys resulted in an ongoing source of local pride and tourist amusement.

• Georgia: On April 1, 2009, the Georgia State Senate passed a resolution 43-1 that affirmed the right of states to nullify federal laws. The resolution also included the assertion that if Congress took certain steps, including restricting firearms or ammunition, the United States government would cease to exist.

• Hawaii: The Hawaiian sovereignty movement has a number of active groups that have won some concessions from the state of Hawaii, including the offering of H.R. 258 in March 2011 which removes the words "Treaty of Annexation" from a statue. It has passed a committee recommendation 6-0 thus far.

• With the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to hear District of Columbia v. Heller in late 2007, an early 2008 movement began in Montana involving at least 60 elected officials addressing potential secession if the Second Amendment were interpreted not to grant an individual right, citing its compact with the United States of America.

• South Carolina: In May 2010 a group was formed calling itself the Third Palmetto Republic, a reference to the fact that the state claimed to be an independent republic twice before in its history: Once in 1776 and again in 1860. The group was modeled after the Second Vermont Republic and says its aims are for a free and independent South Carolina, and to abstain from any further federations.

• Texas Secession Movement: The group Republic of Texas generated national publicity for its controversial actions in the late 1990s. A small group still meets. In April 2009, Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas, raised the issue of secession in disputed comments during a speech at a Tea Party protest saying "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that...My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that."

• Vermont: The Second Vermont Republic, founded in 2003, is a loose network of several groups which describes itself as "a nonviolent citizens' network and think tank opposed to the tyranny of Corporate America and the U.S. government, and committed to the peaceful return of Vermont to its status as an independent republic and more broadly the dissolution of the Union." Its "primary objective is to extricate Vermont peacefully from the United States as soon as possible.” They have worked closely with the Middlebury Institute created from a meeting sponsored in Vermont in 2004. On October 28, 2005, activists held the Vermont Independence Conference, “the first statewide convention on secession in the United States since North Carolina voted to secede from the Union on May 20, 1861.” They also participated in the 2006 and 2007 Middlebury-organized national secessionist meetings which brought delegates from over a dozen groups.

• Republic of Lakotah: Some members of the Lakota people of Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota created the Republic to assert the independence of a nation that was always sovereign and did not willingly join the United States; therefore they do not consider themselves technically to be secessionists.

Regional Secession

• Pacific Northwest: Cascadia: There have been repeated attempts to form a Bioregional Democracy Cascadia in the northwest. The core of Cascadia would be made up through the secession of the states of Washington, Oregon and province of British Columbia, joined by portions of Northern California, Southern Alaska, Idaho and Montana to define its boundaries along ecological, cultural, economic and political boundaries.

• League of the South: The group seeks "a free and independent Southern republic" made up of the former Confederacy. It operated a short lived Southern Party supporting the right of states to secede from the Union or to legally nullify federal laws. Some describe these movements as neo-confederate.

Territory secession

• Puerto Rico: The Puerto Rican independence movement traces its origins to the Taíno rebellion of 1511. Recent resolutions aimed at giving the island the right to self-determination include a draft from the U.N. Special Committee of the 24 on Decolonization in 2009 and the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2010.

See also

• List of U.S. state partition proposals
• List of active autonomist and secessionist movements in the United States
• Ordinance of Secession
• Submissionist
• Thomas Naylor
• Kirkpatrick Sale
• Second Vermont Republic
• League of the South

References

• Amar, Akhil Reed (2005). America's Constitution: A Biography. Random House. ISBN 0-8129-7272-4
• Buel, Richard Jr. (2005). America on the Brink: How the Political Struggle over the War of 1812 Almost Destroyed the Young Republic. Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-6238-3
• Cain, William E., editor (1995). William Lloyd Garrison and the Fight Against Slavery: Selections from The Liberator. Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-10386-7
• Farber, Daniel (2003). Lincoln's Constitution. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-23793-1
• Ferling, John. A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic. (2003) ISBN 978-0-19-515924-0
• Hickey, Donald R. (1997). "Hartford Convention" in Encyclopedia of the War of 1812. Heidler, David S. and Heidler, Jeanne T. editors. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-59114-362-4
• Ketcham, Ralph (1990). James Madison: A Biography. University of Virginia Press. ISBN 0-8139-1265-2
• Klein, Maury (1997). Days of Defiance: Sumter, Secession, and the Coming of the Civil War. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group ISBN 0-679-44747-4
• Maier, Pauline (1997). American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. Knopf. ISBN 0-679-45492-6
• Mayer, Henry (1998). All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery. W. W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-312-18740-8
• McDonald, Forrest. States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio 1776-1876. (2000) ISBN 0-7006-1040-5
• Remini, Robert V. (1984). Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Democracy, 1833–1845. Harper & Row. ISBN 0-06-015279-6
• Sibley, Joel H. (2005). Storm Over Texas: The Annexation Controversy and the Road to Civil War. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513944-0
• Stampp, Kenneth M. "The Concept of a Perpetual Union". The Journal of American History, Vol. 65, no. 1 (Jun., 1978), pp. 5–33
• Varon, Elizabeth R. Disunion: The Coming of the American Civil War, 1789-1859. (2008) ISBN 978-0-8078-3232-5

External links

• Declaration of Causes of Seceding States - Ordinances of Secession of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas