Another way to look at the right to secession.

[Madison320]

I think I thought of a good argument to explain why states have the right to secede.

Suppose Puerto Rico decided to become a state. Would they do so with the condition that they can't change their minds and the Feds have the right to bomb them into submission if they try to leave?

 

[fisharmor]

You got me thinking about something I was saying 20 years ago: How come Iraq isn't on a path to be star number 51?

We go to Japan in 1853 and force them to end their isolationism at gunpoint. But for some reason we acknowledge their right to have their own government and leave them to have it.

We go to to the Philippines in 1899 specifically to deny their declaration of independence. We war crime the place up, cause 200,000 deaths, and in the end, respect their right to self-rule.

We go to Europe in 1917 and embolden one side to wag their dicks in everyone's faces after it finally comes to a close. The losers get saddled with debt they can't possibly repay, and two world powers get snuffed permanently. And we get no stars - we acknowledge everyone's right to self-rule.

We do it again in 1941. We are acknowledged as the entire reason one side won in Europe - we get no stars.
We do Japan Part 2, where we carpet bomb the entire country and become the first and only country in history to use nuclear weapons in anger. We get no stars.

They were evil enough to level their entire country... but they have the right to self rule.
They were evil enough to execute the single most successful genocide attempt in history... but they have the right to self rule.

Your question about PR is a good one. What the hell is going on here? Is the US government's recognition of self-rule a cultural thing?
Is PR culturally different enough that the US government would decide they get self-rule? Being officially subjugated by the Union vs allowing them to self-rule is obviously and demonstrably not tied to any rational merit or righteousness.
Is it a language thing?

 

[acptulsa]

They figured they learned a lesson from the British Empire, which had problems by WWII (like India). Have colonies and dominate their trade, but let them think they're independent. It's why they created the CIA.

 

[Madison320]

Your question about PR is a good one. What the hell is going on here? Is the US government's recognition of self-rule a cultural thing?
Is PR culturally different enough that the US government would decide they get self-rule? Being officially subjugated by the Union vs allowing them to self-rule is obviously and demonstrably not tied to any rational merit or righteousness.
Is it a language thing?

I think the reason most people can see why we'd let Puerto Rico secede peacefully and not an existing state is simply the amount of time that the existing states have existed. People think the federal government "owns" Texas because it's been part of the union for so long. One person I was arguing with said it would be theft if a state seceded.

Of course they're wrong. Just because a certain amount of time has lapsed doesn't mean the state has been "absorbed" by the feds. The logic for allowing Puerto Rico to secede is the same as Texas.