Good topic!

Love this kind of crap...

The question isn’t one of “Is it legal?” but instead, are the individual geo-political organs of the USA "sovereign" to begin with?

This is a question that has plagued the US since its inception. The first talk of secession wasn't in the South, and it had nothing to do with slavery. It occurred in 1803 because of the Louisiana Purchase and it happened in New England. It happened again in 1808, 1813, 1814 and finally ended in 1815 with the resolution of the War of 1812.

No fewer than 117 Indian nations/reservations/organizations have declared "independence" from the United States. 71 "counties" in 18 states have declared their independence, including Jones County, MS (which "seceded" in 1859, well before the CSA was formed). Of course, there are the 13 "Confederate States" of the 1860... 11 of which became the Confederate States of America for four years.

In short, since 1790 when the last of the original 13 colonies ratified the Constitution (RI, I believe), all subsequent state entries into the United States have required ratification of the Constitution as part of their "statehood" status. I am of the opinion that this removes the issue of sovereignty from the States, as they have ceded that to the Federal Government through the ability to mint coin, regulate international trade, draft militia and military forces, and apply tariffs and trade taxes across borders. We are not an "organization" of 50 independent "States”, but a single nation of 50 geo-political divisions called "states". The bloodiest conflict in our history was fought to determine this fact as the rule of law.

The secessionist movement of 1860-61 were (nearly) all popular referendum votes held by the eligible voters of 13 states, and the overwhelming majority of 10 of those states was for the removal of said states from the Union (exceptions being the counties of WV, the states of KY and MO, and the panhandle of FL... all had disputed and probably illegal votes). If the question were one of "what do the PEOPLE want?", then secession was it in states like VA, SC, NC, GA, MS, LA, AL, and TX.

BUT, it isn't a question of what the people want, is it? The "Revolutionary War" was NOT a revolution, was it? It was a war of secession. We (the Americans) did not want to over-throw and REPLACE the government of the United Kingdom... we only wanted to secede from it. That being understood, then the "War of Independence" (a far more accurate term) never took into consideration the will of the vast majority of eligible "voters" (read "citizen land-holders") in states like New York, New Jersey and Georgia that WANTED to remain part of the Crown authority. Their fates were in the hands of a few (less than 20) delegates that decided to sign the Declaration of Independence.

An old (and admittedly leftist) adage says "The purpose of Government is to maintain the status quo." If that is the case (and an argument can certainly be made that it is), then until those bonds between people and government are broken, by whatever means, then the status quo remains as it is.

These are the reasons I feel that secession is, in fact, illegal: No "constitutional" recourse for it is to be found. The Declaration of Independence calls for the over-throw (violent, if needed) of tyrannical and unjust government by the governed... but the Declaration is NOT the law of the land. It was the reasoning for the push for Independence in the first place, nothing more. A simple and eloquent justification for a radical change in the status quo.

About the Lakota cause...

Russell Means is a fine portrayer of American Indian heritage in film and TV, and he has some (but not many) very conservative views (he was a Libertarian/Republican VP candidate, after all), and is probably a HUGE Ron Paul supporter right now. None the less, I don't feel he speaks for the MAJORITY of Indians in the reservations in question... not by a long shot. The AIM uprising at Pine Ridge and Rosebud reservations in the 70s were the acts of 50 or so radical activists with very legitimate concerns and completely illegal means of addressing them. At no point do I think that THEIR actions represented the majority opinion of Indians on the Sioux Nation's reservations. He LOST the bid for the Presidency of the Lakota Nation in every election he has entered into, and failed to win in elections held at other reservations in NM and AZ (bands he wasn't a member of), so I am still not sure how he became the spokesman for this Lakota Independence cause. Someone will have to explain that to me...

I can't imagine a more "autonomous" mode of self-determination than the Indian nations already enjoy... no state obligations or taxes due, only Federal agents and designated Tribal law enforcement have any authority on reservation land, and a non-voting representative party at the United Nations (as part of the Indigenous Peoples of North America Council). No other ethnic segment of American society has these (or anything close to these) freedoms from bureaucratic control and certainly no geo-political segment enjoys that much freedom. The unclaimed settlements given by the US Government in 1980 now total in excess of $1 billion dollars, and they are only unclaimed because no "land" was given with them. Not one of the Lakota reservations in question has taken a PENNY from the Feds in more than 16 years... nothing for welfare, medical benefits, road maintenance, housing allowances, unemployment benefits, tuition reimbursement or loans... not a penny. Since the inception of "Indian gaming", they have not needed a dime, and in fact have FUNDED "state" improvements because the infrastructure at a state level isn't keeping up with that on the reservation (see the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwa Indians, for that example).

That injustices were perpetrated by the Federal government is beyond question, and restitution for those injustices is undoubtedly due, if it hasn't already been given (see the $1 billion sitting in a bank somewhere unclaimed mentioned above)... but what hope could the reservations have of maintaining true "independence" even if it were possible? What means do they have to supply such trifles as fuel, food and security without the aid of the US? Arguments could be made that places like California (already the 6th largest economy on the globe!) could exist quite easily as an independent state… but little more than 400,000 acres spread over 5 states (and not contiguously, either) with a population of less than 25,000 and NO industrial or economic infrastructure? I don’t think so…

Still, James’ question was whether or not the Southern states had the legal right to secede from the Union. As already stated, 10 of 13 states held popular votes that determined without question that the vast majority of citizens wanted to break with the US. The legality of that break was settled four years later at Appomattox. No other question of secession was carried that far, either before or since, so it is our only frame of reference. To allow otherwise, the US would be setting a precedent that is beyond dangerous, it is societal suicide.