As we learned from the American Civil War, the southern states were incapable of seceding. However this isn’t the question at hand. The above user asked this:
The outcome of a war 160 years ago has utterly no relation to how a decision to secede would play out today. I use the word “process” in place of “whatever sequence of actions” might occur if states were to assert their intent to separate from the country. “Secession” might not even be an appropriate term - a resolution could be introduced, through all the correct and proper channels, for the United States to dissolve in an organized fashion, as the Soviet Union did in 1991. There’s really no point saying any political proposal “can’t” happen.
My point is the North employed violence in the form of a successful military campaign to maintain the Union. Where the North failed was following up with a re-education campaign to squash southern propaganda, such as the myth of the Lost Cause.
It’s not like the DON’T WALK sign at the crosswalk. If a state presented Congress with a demand to secede they would have to address it. Simply telling the state it was illegal wouldn’t be enough. The state could take whatever next step they want, the federal government would have to respond, and whatever was going to happen would happen. There’s no point speculating about the results, but if a state got to the point of actually starting this sequence rolling, it wouldn’t just stop with “sorry no you can’t it’s illegal.”
A jaywalker doesn’t petition the town council to cross the street illegally. They jaywalk. A state seceding could involve as little as a governor declaring their state left the Union. At that point the ball would be in the Federal Government’s court to set the record straight, to clarify that the state in fact did not secede.
The conversation wouldn’t end there. The state would retort to the effect that, “Oh yes we did,” and the central theme of the discussion would quickly shift away from proper use of the term “secede” and whether a jaywalker analogy works to what everybody is actually going to do about it.
“Can’t?” States are not supposed to secede. People aren’t supposed to commit crimes either, but they do. Some even get away with it.
As we learned from the American Civil War, the southern states were incapable of seceding. However this isn’t the question at hand. The above user asked this:
There is no such process.
The outcome of a war 160 years ago has utterly no relation to how a decision to secede would play out today. I use the word “process” in place of “whatever sequence of actions” might occur if states were to assert their intent to separate from the country. “Secession” might not even be an appropriate term - a resolution could be introduced, through all the correct and proper channels, for the United States to dissolve in an organized fashion, as the Soviet Union did in 1991. There’s really no point saying any political proposal “can’t” happen.
My point is the North employed violence in the form of a successful military campaign to maintain the Union. Where the North failed was following up with a re-education campaign to squash southern propaganda, such as the myth of the Lost Cause.
The only thing that prevented the south from seceding was Lincoln’s re-election. Literally.
Also, the North’s industrialization which allowed the North to outman, outgun, and outrailroad the South.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm
They can’t do it legally without changing the law. Of course, the only laws that will matter soon are those that the GOP supports.
It’s not like the DON’T WALK sign at the crosswalk. If a state presented Congress with a demand to secede they would have to address it. Simply telling the state it was illegal wouldn’t be enough. The state could take whatever next step they want, the federal government would have to respond, and whatever was going to happen would happen. There’s no point speculating about the results, but if a state got to the point of actually starting this sequence rolling, it wouldn’t just stop with “sorry no you can’t it’s illegal.”
A jaywalker doesn’t petition the town council to cross the street illegally. They jaywalk. A state seceding could involve as little as a governor declaring their state left the Union. At that point the ball would be in the Federal Government’s court to set the record straight, to clarify that the state in fact did not secede.
The conversation wouldn’t end there. The state would retort to the effect that, “Oh yes we did,” and the central theme of the discussion would quickly shift away from proper use of the term “secede” and whether a jaywalker analogy works to what everybody is actually going to do about it.
The Federal Government’s current preferred medium of communication is UAVs. They leave little room for further discussion and semantics.