AHC: Have a US state secede in the 20th century
- Thread starter vuun
- Start date
To begin, there is no unilateral right for a US state to secede. The U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. White (1868) held that a state (or states) could secede with the approval of both houses of Congress and then that action being ratified by three-fourths of the other states' legislatures. Good luck with that. Succession unilaterally has the same result as it did for South Carolina, et al. in the 1860's. The again, maybe a state (or collection of states) could wage a successful conflict, or force a concession, but how this would happen is probably pure wish-casting by the person advocating such position. But especially since the later half of the 20th century, after 1960s, state populations are too intermixed. I've lived in 8 states-- what state do I go with? Only an odd handful of citizens nowadays have the level of loyalty and sense of duty to their home state (over the nation) that, as an example, many Confederate leaders expressed at the time of succession. So is California is going to succeed because a Republican is elected president, or will Florida bolt from President Kamala Harris? Its not happening notwithstanding the number of people expending a minimal amount of energy to sign a succession petition or tell a pollster "We're outta here!" Its just talk to vent. When time comes for the heavy lifting needed for an independence movement, you're left with a few nut-jobs.
But I'm ranting and you asked a question that I haven't answered. So, no, I don't see any marginally plausible scenario for a US state to secede from the Union in the 20th Century. That said, if you ask the similar question, any US state, or territory, seceding during the 19th Century (I know, wrong forum, and beside the South), my vote goes to Utah and the militant Mormon sects. Even then, probably not the whole territory.
Instead, I think its far more likely that 49 states would band to together to eject Nebraska from the Union. "Why Nebraska" you ask... its soooo damn boring to drive through.
But I'm ranting and you asked a question that I haven't answered. So, no, I don't see any marginally plausible scenario for a US state to secede from the Union in the 20th Century. That said, if you ask the similar question, any US state, or territory, seceding during the 19th Century (I know, wrong forum, and beside the South), my vote goes to Utah and the militant Mormon sects. Even then, probably not the whole territory.
Instead, I think its far more likely that 49 states would band to together to eject Nebraska from the Union. "Why Nebraska" you ask... its soooo damn boring to drive through.
The easiest way I could see would be the pocketbook, similar to how much of the furor for western Canadian secession comes from tax revenues going east especially to Quebec.
Get Congress to enact and the Supreme Court to bless some highly unequal, clearly unconstitutional but “let the supremes enforce it” and even ruinous taxation on a state’s major export and you’d have a very serious secessionist movement.
Maybe if an ultra-environmental swing across the country in the 1970s essentially ground coal country into dust you might well see a push for “at least we will be our own masters.”
Another one I could see is a predatory coalition of big agriculture basically blocking Hawaii from enforcing or having agricultural inspections or customs within the US, with the goal of destroying the competition.
Get Congress to enact and the Supreme Court to bless some highly unequal, clearly unconstitutional but “let the supremes enforce it” and even ruinous taxation on a state’s major export and you’d have a very serious secessionist movement.
Maybe if an ultra-environmental swing across the country in the 1970s essentially ground coal country into dust you might well see a push for “at least we will be our own masters.”
Another one I could see is a predatory coalition of big agriculture basically blocking Hawaii from enforcing or having agricultural inspections or customs within the US, with the goal of destroying the competition.
Well, this would require quite a bit of set up, but a USA that finds itself in the aftermath of a period of dictatorship, perhaps occuring during the Great Depression, could evoke an Article V constitutional convention as a means of restoring some semblance of a constitution, only for the states to fail to agree on what the shape the new constitution should take, and voting as a collective based on the ruling of Texas v White that the US should dissolve into various regional Republics.
Maybe forced desegregation in the 1950s and 60s comes the closest. Even then, in 1957 when the state of Arkansas refused to integrate their public school system following Brown v. Bd. of Ed., Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under federal control and sent in the 101st Airborne Division. The Arkansas Nat'l Guard (and the local police agencies) simply stood pat and let it happen. Sure, there was speechifying by the Bull Connor's and others, and the KKK pulled its crap (usually in the middle of the night and ambushing unarmed victims). But even by the 1950's, whites residing in the Southern states weren't as monolithic in their views of race relations.
And the situation in Canada is similar to one of my initial points. Besides some periodic "letters to the editor," callers to talk-radio, and the occasional petition, nothing happens.
Interesting... probably not Roosevelt but someone more like Huey Long, who would have also enjoyed huge Democratic majorities in Congress, packed the Supremes, etc., leading to the evolution of the dictatorship,
Could a state do something bad enough (make war on the United States perhaps) that the other states choose to expel it from the Union?
I did read a TL a long time ago in which desegregation was delayed by a decade because WW2 didn't happen (Hitler didn't rise to power). The extra decade gave time for polarization to build up, and when Washington finally forced the issue in the early 70s, Alabama's state government seceded in practice (declaring that the Union should only be for mutual defense and foreign policy and that if the feds wouldn't limit their power to that then they should leave). Shots were fired and casualties resulted when the National Guard tried to expel the officials in the Federal Buildings in Birmingham, and the US military moved in. The rebellion was ended within days, with the State Capitol bombarded (it was the last stronghold of the rebels), the Governor dead by suicide, and with Birmingham (the center of the unionist movement) becoming the new capital. In all it was certainly the most violent desegregation I've read in a TL.
How about someone making one of the US territories a State, everything going quite badly and then the state undergoing a 'managed secession' to independence? Puerto Rico being the obvious one.
Let us assume that the majority of a given state want to secede for whatever reason. What practical steps can the Union take to prevent a unilateral secession? Not what laws exist but how would they be enacted effectively? Arrest and imprison most of the population? Execute ringleaders. Establish internment camps to ‘re eductate’ secessionists?
Nothing like this would be remotely necessary or desirable. (Hell, even in the American Civil War none of this happened, and that was a much more extreme scenario than simply one state seceding.) Look at somewhere like Catalonia, where the population is more or less evenly split on the question of independence. Spain didn't need to turn into North Korea and start executing pro-independence leaders and imprisoning literally everyone who voted for independence, they just arrested the pro-independence politicians who attempted to secede and put down protests using the police. A US state with a secessionist movement would likely end up similarly even if its secessionists were more popular than Catalonia's: federal forces roll in and take control, the politicians involved in the secession attempt are arrested, and protests are suppressed. You don't need to arrest literally every single supporter of secession unless you assume they all will stop at nothing to make it happen and can only be stopped from actively revolting against the government if they're killed or imprisoned, and you shouldn't, because that's a bad assumption. If 60% or whatever of the population are pro-independence, the vast majority of them will be basically ordinary people with concerns other than secession who will respond to a setback like this by just going back to their jobs and biding their time, and in the meanwhile not doing anything that would be worth sending them to a camp for.
For practical reasons it can't be an interior state. It would have to border Mexico, Canada, or the ocean. Otherwise it's landlocked and at the mercy of the US while having no say in governance. Nobody is signing up for that.
A solid blue state can't leave because the Democrats won't want to lose them. A solid red state can't leave because the Republicans will block it.
You'd need a purple state with a fairly small population that would benefit from leaving and would be a small enough loss that the rest of the country would agree.
A solid blue state can't leave because the Democrats won't want to lose them. A solid red state can't leave because the Republicans will block it.
You'd need a purple state with a fairly small population that would benefit from leaving and would be a small enough loss that the rest of the country would agree.
Puerto Rico is easily the most likely candidate in my mind. I imagine it starts with a statehood referendum passing there with a slim majority and the US accepts the result. However, you could end up with a contrary political movement that opposes statehood and advocates for independence, even after the fact. Maybe a decade or two later that movement gains enough sway in Puerto Rico's government to push for a new referendum. You could end up in a Brexit type situation and I suspect if Puerto Rico was still a relatively fresh state, the rest of the US might accept the result. That's probably doubly likely if it affects one of the major political parties favorably.