Vermont to secede from the Union?

[BCSbunk]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122514508

Peter Garritano thinks it's time for Vermont to call it quits with America.

The way the 54-year-old automobile salesman sees it, the "empire" is about to implode and tiny Vermont can lead the way by becoming its own independent republic. So he's running for lieutenant governor, topping a slate of secession-minded candidates seeking statewide offices this year.

Their name: Vermont Independence Day.

"The only hope is to just say, 'Look, this isn't working for us. We want to start fresh again, with a real democracy,'" Garritano said. "I think that's the answer. Hopefully, it won't take another horrible economic breakdown to realize that the people running things don't look out for the little guy, or us, or the soldiers. It's all about profit and getting the last drops of oil on Earth and trampling people's rights."

What do you you think? Serious or rhetoric?

[hrspeedmerchant]

Secede, not succeed.

[jmog]

Vermont actually talks about this about once every 10 years or so.

[I Wear Pants]

What an idiot.

Edit: The guy, not the OP.

[september63]

BYE!!

[ytownfootball]

Vermont actually talks about this about once every 10 years or so.

Yep, nothing new

[wkfan]

Bye.....

Oh, by the way...don't forget that your old country....you know, the one thatis so bad, has cut off federal funding for roads, education and a host of other things that you probably take for granted. Not to mention, defending your sorry asses.....

[queencitybuckeye]

Well, as there's no constitutional provision for a state to withdraw from the union, I guess that means war. I like our chances. :)

[QuakerOats]

Bye.....

Oh, by the way...don't forget that your old country....you know, the one thatis so bad, has cut off federal funding for roads, education and a host of other things that you probably take for granted. Not to mention, defending your sorry asses.....


What, you mean all the money that the people of Vermont send to Washington to begin with that gets wasted, squandered, and plundered by federal bureaucrats? Hell, Vermonters should keep their money and do better .................... and can Ohio join in with them; I'd love it.

[wkfan]

Bye.....

Oh, by the way...don't forget that your old country....you know, the one thatis so bad, has cut off federal funding for roads, education and a host of other things that you probably take for granted. Not to mention, defending your sorry asses.....


What, you mean all the money that the people of Vermont send to Washington to begin with that gets wasted, squandered, and plundered by federal bureaucrats? Hell, Vermonters should keep their money and do better .................... and can Ohio join in with them; I'd love it.


Why not be a trendsetter.......

[jmog]

What's funny is if you look up secession in the US on the interwebs there are all kinds of funny stories.

One is a city in Vermont that doesn't like Vermont's politics (things like this thread) and wants to secede from Vermont and be a part of New Hampshire. The problem is that its not really even close to the border so it would be its own "island" of New Hampshire inside of Vermont. Yeah, that got shot down.

There is one in Ohio where an elected official in Akron/Summit County wanted all of NE Ohio to secede from Ohio. Oh, and he's still in office I believe, so if you want to know who it is just google it. I don't want to really delve into it as I have family members that work for the Summit County government and don't want to get them in trouble, lol.

[Swamp Fox]

I certainly hope the new independent nation of Vermont isn't attacked by China.

[wkfan]

I certainly hope the new independent nation of Vermont isn't attacked by China.


...or Rhode Island....

[hasbeen]

I certainly hope the new independent nation of Vermont isn't attacked by China.


...or Rhode Island....


This made me lol.

1) It ain't gonna happen.
2) If somehow, someway it did happen. The US would still help defend them, because any other country attacking them would basically be in America and could attack us. Blah blah. Either way, it's a the guy(not OP) is an idiot.

[gport_tennis]

Well, as there's no constitutional provision for a state to withdraw from the union, I guess that means war. I like our chances. :)


Are you saying that Vermont is not allowed to secede from the union? If so I dont believe that to be correct. From what I have read a state has the power if it chooses so to secede from the union.

[majorspark]

Well, as there's no constitutional provision for a state to withdraw from the union, I guess that means war. I like our chances. :)


Are you saying that Vermont is not allowed to secede from the union? If so I dont believe that to be correct. From what I have read a state has the power if it chooses so to secede from the union.


You are correct. The constitution is the contract that lays out the rules governing the union. You can make quite a case that the federal government is in violation of that contract. Therefore a state can withdraw from it legally.

[HitsRus]

Jeez, are we going to have to import maple syrup too?

[ytownfootball]

Counting a little heavily on those knick knack shops and exportation of bio fuels as their pillars of industry I think.

[queencitybuckeye]

Well, as there's no constitutional provision for a state to withdraw from the union, I guess that means war. I like our chances. :)


Are you saying that Vermont is not allowed to secede from the union? If so I dont believe that to be correct. From what I have read a state has the power if it chooses so to secede from the union.


You are correct. The constitution is the contract that lays out the rules governing the union. You can make quite a case that the federal government is in violation of that contract. Therefore a state can withdraw from it legally.


No offense, but before accepting your premise, I'd prefer at minimum someone saying it to have attended law school. :)

[queencitybuckeye]

Well, as there's no constitutional provision for a state to withdraw from the union, I guess that means war. I like our chances. :)


Are you saying that Vermont is not allowed to secede from the union? If so I dont believe that to be correct. From what I have read a state has the power if it chooses so to secede from the union.


If the states have that power, the only place it could reside would be in the constitution. It isn't there.

[Gobuckeyes1]

So what do the other 7 people in Vermont think about this?

[NNN]

If the states have that power, the only place it could reside would be in the constitution. It isn't there.


States absolutely have that power; it would be no different than if a country wanted to withdraw from the European Union.

Every state in the union acceded some of their power. They have the ability to secede and run themselves....oh, pretty much however they damn well please.

[cbus4life]

Doesn't someone from Vermont say this every year?

Not saying he isn't in the right, or isn't on to something, but this isn't new.

I love Vermont, too! Would be call to add another "country" to my list of places visited. :D

[dwccrew]

I certainly hope the new independent nation of Vermont isn't attacked by China.


Do you really think that if a neighboring country of the US was attacked that the US wouldn't be there to help them fight off the attacker? The US doesn't want a war near its borders.

[Classyposter58]

Shoot now Ben & Jerry's is going to have high tariffs on it. Thought the stuff couldn't get more expensive

[I Wear Pants]

Well, as there's no constitutional provision for a state to withdraw from the union, I guess that means war. I like our chances. :)


Are you saying that Vermont is not allowed to secede from the union? If so I dont believe that to be correct. From what I have read a state has the power if it chooses so to secede from the union.


If the states have that power, the only place it could reside would be in the constitution. It isn't there.
There isn't any provision about speeding in the constitution does that mean that I can do it?

[majorspark]

Well, as there's no constitutional provision for a state to withdraw from the union, I guess that means war. I like our chances. :)


Are you saying that Vermont is not allowed to secede from the union? If so I dont believe that to be correct. From what I have read a state has the power if it chooses so to secede from the union.


If the states have that power, the only place it could reside would be in the constitution. It isn't there.


There is no enumerated power granting the federal government the authority to force a state to remain a part of the union. The states voluntarily ceded some of their power to form the union. But only if the federal government agreed to limit its power as defined to those enumerated in the constitution. If a state feels the contract governing the secession of some of their power is being violated, than they have the power to cede it back.

The 10th amendment states the following:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Since no power is delegated to the federal government to force a union, the power to remain a part of the union resides with the states.

[Cleveland Buck]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it implore states that are in the union to remain in the union. It does however have the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, it looks like it is up to a state if they want to secede. As for Vermont, I'm sure they're not serious, but someone ought to get serious about it here soon.

[Cleveland Buck]

Well, great minds think alike I suppose.

[Cleveland Buck]

There isn't any provision about speeding in the constitution does that mean that I can do it?


Nope, which means it is up to your state if they want to allow it. Do they?

[majorspark]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it implore states that are in the union to remain in the union. It does however have the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, it looks like it is up to a state if they want to secede. As for Vermont, I'm sure they're not serious, but someone ought to get serious about it here soon.


They will get real serious when the federal government goes bankrupt.

[icskins]

Ok, hypothetical question:

What if the U.S. Government goes bankrupt or for some reason all the loans we have outstanding are called. The states, all of them, say the hell with it. They all go their own way, or band together in smaller groups and we have multiple nations. What is the collateral on these loans? What would we lose by the Federal Government going under? Would the individual states stand to lose anything?

[Cleveland Buck]

Ok, hypothetical question:

What if the U.S. Government goes bankrupt or for some reason all the loans we have outstanding are called. The states, all of them, say the hell with it. They all go their own way, or band together in smaller groups and we have multiple nations. What is the collateral on these loans? What would we lose by the Federal Government going under? Would the individual states stand to lose anything?


Well, I'm pretty sure the loans aren't secured by anything but the credit of the U.S., so those people and countries would get nothing. Of course, dollars would be worthless at that point as they backed by the 'full faith and credit of the United States'. You are looking at severe hyperinflation, stores only accepting gold or foreign currency if you want to buy food or anything. Foreign oil imports would just about stop as we would have no way of paying for them. The states that seceded would have to pay high prices for everything until they established a stable currency of their own. It would suck for everyone, but states that have some sense would be able to eventually pull out of it.

[Squirmydog]

I hope they take Maine and Massachusetts with them.

[icskins]

That would be the key though. Alot of states have plenty of natural resources. Others have gold reserves, etc. There would be ways to avoid the hyperinflation for certain areas. That would then mean that other areas would have to band together and we would maybe have 10 smaller nations. Alaska would probably go alone. They can be pretty self sufficient and would have the money/resources to buy what they needed. I would look for some conflict on the southern border. That would be the best chance that Mexico has ever had for retaking some of the land they lost. I don't think they could do it, but if they were ever going to try, that would be the time. I half think that it would be worth it in the long run. The way things have been going, there is practically no state control left. Everything is done on the Federal level. That is not the way it was intended to work.

[georgemc80]

Okay, I have this debate with my AP US History kids every year, especially with all the way too proud of Texas idiots that tout their "right to secede" being in their constitution. What a bunch of fools.

For those that think seccession is legal, you need to understand that the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what is not...it is the interpretation of at least 5 justices that matters...and noone else....

In the case of Texas v. White the Supreme Court ruled that no state had the right to secede. Even in the period of rebellion, Texas was considered a state. If you want more info on this case, you can find this landmark case at www.oyez.org and many other court websites.



In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit and that individuals such as White had no claim to the bonds in question. The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.


Basically, secession is illegal....good luck Vermont....and good luck to the slick haired governor of Texas Rick Perry...you are a joke for having even mentioned secession.

[Gardens35]

Would the Big 10 accept Vermont?

[icskins]

georgemc80,

Have you ever heard of the book "The South Was Right"? It was written in the mid 90's I believe. It laid the legal case for the southern states right to secede. Very detailed arguements. I am not saying the author was right or wrong, I was just curious if you had heard of it.

[CenterBHSFan]

I remember somebody putting up a clip of Ron Paul who made a good argument about secession a while back...

[majorspark]

Okay, I have this debate with my AP US History kids every year. For those that think seccession is legal, you need to understand that the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what is not...it is the interpretation of at least 5 justices that matters...and noone else....

In the case of Texas v. White the Supreme Court ruled that no state had the right to secede. Even in the period of rebellion, Texas was considered a state. If you want more info on this case, you can find this landmark case at www.oyez.org and many other court websites.



In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit and that individuals such as White had no claim to the bonds in question. The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.


Basically, secession is illegal....good luck Vermont....and good luck to the slick haired governor of Texas Rick Perry...you are a joke for having even mentioned secession.


So your liberty is in the hands of a majority of 5/9 judges. Question for you, has the Supreme Court ever been wrong?

[Cleveland Buck]

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to support that decision. Essentially they ruled secession illegal, "because we said so." What a joke. It's not the only stupid, illegal decision they have made though.

[JoeA1010]

President Bernie Sanders - Socialist

Wonder whether anyone would be moving to Vermont? I think it's a good idea for them to secede. They can have their own little socialist paradise, a la Cuba.

[BoatShoes]

MajorSpark and Cleveland Buck, I'm going to have to agree with you in this instance in regards to Constitutional Interpretation. Though I'm a believer in a federalist view on Article One, It's hard for me to find how blocking a state from succeeding would be a necessary and proper means of executing any of the enumerated powers; even if you were to accept the view that the taxing and spending clause grants a federal police power (which I know, MajorSpark rejects).

Also, it seems to me that the SCOTUS contradicted its ruling in Texas v. State with the holding in South Dakota v. Dole. That case held that the Feds could attach conditions on funds granted to states but that the Feds cannot coerce the states. It seems to me that disallowing succession would undoubtedly be coercing a sovereign state to remain in the union.

In fact, with the free trade agreements with countries that aren't even in our union and global military alliances like NATO; the arguments for unionizing with the other states might really not seem so strong these days. If the U.S. will freely trade with China and serve besides Canadians, why wouldn't they also do so with Vermont?

[bman618]

On secession and the Supreme Court: So we have the federal government - its branch the Supreme Court - saying no state can secede from the federal government. I'm shocked, not. The federal government ruling on secession is not the most unbiased ruling ever.

As there is no power in the Constitution to force a state to stay, the 10th amendment as others have pointed out reserves that power to the states. Remember, this is supposed to be a confederation of independent states yielding few powers to a federal government, not a powerful central government as is the case today.

[Footwedge]

Well, as there's no constitutional provision for a state to withdraw from the union, I guess that means war. I like our chances. :)


Texas has written in their state constitution that they can legally secede from the United States at a whim without repercussion. Hell....they already control more than half of our military and our oil supply. They might even elect Pinnochio from Crawford to run things for awhile.

[queencitybuckeye]

I believe the question was answered beyond all question in the 1860s.

[georgemc80]

So your liberty is in the hands of a majority of 5/9 judges. Question for you, has the Supreme Court ever been wrong?

When it comes to ruling what can and can't be done in this country....yes...and yes they have been wrong on many occasions...Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Miranda v. Arizona and Gore v. Florida..(j/k) But that doesn't change the legality of those decisions. It is the system we live with...it works.


this is supposed to be a confederation of independent states
We are not a confederation.....The Confederation did not work. It did not work because the states did not yield enough power to the Federal government. One of the underlying principles of the constitution is Federalism....

That means that the Federal government is the boss over the State government.


Texas has written in their state constitution that they can legally secede from the United States at a whim without repercussion. Hell....they already control more than half of our military and our oil supply. They might even elect Pinnochio from Crawford to run things for awhile.

This is the same inane argument I hear down here all the time....see above reference to Federalism....if a State constitution is in conflict with the Federal Government....Federal wins.

[Cleveland Buck]

I believe the question was answered beyond all question in the 1860s.


The question of whether the federal government would allow states to secede was answered in the 1860s, not the question of whether the Constitution would allow them to secede.

[queencitybuckeye]

The question of whether the federal government would allow states to secede was answered in the 1860s, not the question of whether the Constitution would allow them to secede.


The difference is purely an academic exercise. As a practical matter, the issue is resolved.

[fan_from_texas]

I believe the question was answered beyond all question in the 1860s.


That's my thought, too. I seem to recall that some states already attempted secession, and that it generally didn't work out too well for them.

[NNN]

If those states had seceded in 1857, nothing would have happened since Buchanan wouldn't have allowed it.

[Footwedge]

Texas has written in their state constitution that they can legally secede from the United States at a whim without repercussion. Hell....they already control more than half of our military and our oil supply. They might even elect Pinnochio from Crawford to run things for awhile.


This is the same inane argument I hear down here all the time....see above reference to Federalism....if a State constitution is in conflict with the Federal Government....Federal wins.


If the statement is no "inane", then maybe you should review these FAQ's regarding Texas.

And bear in mind, Texas would win a civil war all be herself with the Union this time...with all the military force embedded in her back yard.

http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

[georgemc80]

First of all, the Texas Constitution is a pile of mess. I can get an amendment by submitting it on a used tissue....too many amendments mean to easy to change.

Second of all, being able to "militarily do something" doesn't make it legal.


Texas government is a joke.


And btw, a radical website is not the greatest source or interpretation.

[Cleveland Buck]

Second of all, being able to "militarily do something" doesn't make it legal.


This is a good response to this post.



I believe the question was answered beyond all question in the 1860s.

[Footwedge]

First of all, the Texas Constitution is a pile of mess. I can get an amendment by submitting it on a used tissue....too many amendments mean to easy to change.

Second of all, being able to "militarily do something" doesn't make it legal.


Texas government is a joke.


And btw, a radical website is not the greatest source or interpretation.


What exactly constitutes a radical website? Apparently you didn't read the article. Good for you. As far as the illegality of sucession from the US, this "radical website" agrees that it would be illegal. 99% of all secessions are deemed "illegal". Do you think the founding fathers broke any British laws when we as a country seceeded?

The following, from an email that circulated over the net about a year ago. The point being...if Texas wants to cut ties...they could easily do so...


From The People of Texas

We Texans love y'all, but we'll have to take action if Obama wins
president over McCain. We'll miss you too.

Texas has given all those complainers plenty of time to get used to the results. After seeing the whiners along the campaign route, the folks from Texas are considering taking matters into our hands.

Here is our solution:

#1: Elect Barak Obama President of the United States. (All 49 states.)

#2: George W. Bush becomes the President of the Republic Of Texas.

So what does Texas have to do to survive as a Republic?

1. NASA is just south of Houston, Texas. (We will control the space industry.)

2. We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States.

3. Defense Industry. (We have over 65% of it) The term "Don’t mess with Texas," will take on a whole new meaning.

4. Oil - we can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will need for the next 300 years. Yankee states? Sorry about that.

5. Natural Gas - Again we have all we need and it's too bad about those northern states. John Kerry will figure a way to keep them warm....

6. Computer Industry - we currently lead the nation in producing computer chips and communications: Small places like Texas Instruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Atmel, Applied Materials, Ball Semiconductor, Dallas Semiconductor, Delphi, Nortel, Alcatel, Etc, Etc. The list goes on and on.

7. Health Centers - We have the largest research centers for Cancer research, the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world and other large health planning centers.

8. We have enough colleges to keep us going: UT Texas, A&M, Texas Tech, Rice, SMU, University of Houston, Baylor, UNT, Texas Women's University, Ivy grows better in the south anyway

9. We have a ready supply of workers. (Just open the border when we need some)

10. We have control of the paper industry, plastics, insurance, etc.

11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard. We don't have an army but since everybody down here has at least six rifles and a pile of ammo, we can raise an army in 24 hours if we need it. If the situation really gets bad, we can always call Department of Public Safety and ask them to send over a couple Texas Rangers.

12. We are totally self sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs and several types of grain, fruit and vegetables and lets not forget seafood from the gulf. And everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste good. Don't need any food.

This just names a few of the items that will keep the Republic Of Texas in good shape. There isn't a thing out there that we need and don't have.

Now to the rest of the United States under President Obama: Since you won't have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only Mr. Kerry will be able to drive around in his 9 mile per gallon SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.

You won't have any TV as the space center in Houston will cut off your communications. You won't have any natural gas to heat your homes but since Mr. Kerry has predicted global warming, you will not need the gas.

Signed, The People in Texas

Have a nice day!

[LJ]

So Texas would seize the ownership of the oil leases from the many many out of state owners?

[Footwedge]

So Texas would seize the ownership of the oil leases from the many many out of state owners?


They would do a lot of things that don't follow the rule of law. That's what happens when a secession takes place.

Personally, I don't give 2 craps what Texas does. One (or maybe 2) less teams Ohio State has to worry about in winning a championship.

The Big 12 and the Mountain West Conference would be in shambles. :D

[LJ]

So Texas would seize the ownership of the oil leases from the many many out of state owners?


They would do a lot of things that don't follow the rule of law. That's what happens when a secession takes place.

Personally, I don't give 2 craps what Texas does. One (or maybe 2) less teams Ohio State has to worry about in winning a championship.

The Big 12 and the Mountain West Conference would be in shambles. :D


I just find it funny that Texans think they own the oil supply when they would have to deal with people much scarier than investors in the U.S. (aka the middle easterners who like to diversify).

[BigAppleBuckeye]

For what it's worth, I'd consider moving to the Republic of Vermont -- went to Killington last year, great skiing, beer and pancakes!

[queencitybuckeye]

For 12 virtual dollars, what is the logical fallacy in regards to Texas' wealth, ability to fight off the union, etc.? The argument is fatally flawed - why?

[rmolin73]

What would make you think that everyone in Texas would agree to fight with them?

[queencitybuckeye]

Look at the big brain on rmolin73. :)

Well done.

[CenterBHSFan]

I don't know.

I think if states started dropping off like flies (or attempted to secede), it would be a wakeup call in DC.

Or not.

[georgemc80]

The following, from an email that circulated over the net about a year ago. The point being...if Texas wants to cut ties...they could easily do so...


The fact that you would use the word "easily" in that sentence tells me that I am wasting my time discussing this point with you.

As a parting gift though I leave you this.

"To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. It will take the flower of the country-the young men."

Sam Houston
Governor, Texas

[Cleveland Buck]

We all know that the federal government can prevent states from seceding by military force. That does not make it legal.

[queencitybuckeye]

The original question was "serious or rhetoric?". Clearly the practical answers this without regard for legal, altough legally I'd side with the union.

[majorspark]

The following, from an email that circulated over the net about a year ago. The point being...if Texas wants to cut ties...they could easily do so...


The fact that you would use the word "easily" in that sentence tells me that I am wasting my time discussing this point with you.

As a parting gift though I leave you this.

"To secede from the Union and set up another government would cause war. If you go to war with the United States, you will never conquer her, as she has the money and the men. If she does not whip you by guns, powder, and steel, she will starve you to death. It will take the flower of the country-the young men."

Sam Houston
Governor, Texas


Sam Houston was correct. At that point in history. Long before industrialization and mass use of fossil fuels. In 1860 the free
population of Texas was around 425,000.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm

Today Texas is quite different. As noted by Footwedge.

[majorspark]

The original question was "serious or rhetoric?". Clearly the practical answers this without regard for legal, altough legally I'd side with the union.


Right now it is just rhetoric. For the most part they are just subtle hints to the federal government that there is threshold that can be crossed.

If the federal government continues to abuse its power to tax and spend, and plunges itself further and further into debt, to the point that the debt burden becomes so great the average American can no longer bear it. At this point you will see states take action to protect their treasure and rescources.

[bman618]

We are not a confederation.....The Confederation did not work. It did not work because the states did not yield enough power to the Federal government. One of the underlying principles of the constitution is Federalism....

Membership in the United States under the Constitution wasn't forced so the states entered one at a time forming a confederation (I'm not referring to the first government of the country). That's why the country was referred to as these united States or the united States are a great country prior to the Civil War. Membership, according to the Constitution, is in the hands of the states through the 10th amendment and they can come and go - a confederation type of setup but with a stronger national government. A Federation, as the federal government claims through their actions in the Civil War, is permanent.

[NNN]

We are not a confederation.....The Confederation did not work. It did not work because the states did not yield enough power to the Federal government. One of the underlying principles of the constitution is Federalism....

Membership in the United States under the Constitution wasn't forced so the states entered one at a time forming a confederation (I'm not referring to the first government of the country). That's why the country was referred to as these united States or the united States are a great country prior to the Civil War. Membership, according to the Constitution, is in the hands of the states through the 10th amendment and they can come and go - a confederation type of setup but with a stronger national government. A Federation, as the federal government claims through their actions in the Civil War, is permanent.


The funny thing is that the Articles of Confederation guaranteed a "perpetual union"...and yet it only lasted a few short years before being dissolved and replaced by the Constitutional government.