I need help on a History qusestion, what is the 'secession of states?'?
359889
The secession of states was when the Southern States decided to leave the union and form The Confederate States of America.  No, they were not inbred blue bloods who wanted to hold onto slavery (slavery was just as rampant in the North - it began there).  The CSA truly believed in the right for states to govern themselves as set forth in the Articles of the Constitution.  This secession led to the War of Northern Aggression (commonly known as the Civil Way), which lasted from April 1861 to April 1864.
801283
I'm having a hard time following the premise of your question.\n\nYou state..."It was Mexico that made the deal to sell off the southern states."\n\nThis is historically unfounded. The American states of the Deep South (Mississippi, Alabama, etc.) were all a part of the original territories of the United States, formed before Mexico achieved independence.\n\nOther Southern states like Louisianna and Arkansas, etc, were carved from the Louisianna Purchase which was negotiated between the US and France.\n\nThe state of Texas achieved independence as a result of war with Mexico. (Again, Mexico "sold" nothing). And the states of the American Southwest were taken from Mexico during the Mexican-American War. (Mexico didn't "sell" them).\n\nThe only portion "sold" to the US was a tiny sliver of land in southern Arizona, known as the Gadsden Purchase. \n\nThese things being the case -- can you clarify you point, please?
1138867
Perhaps, but it will never happen.  Under the U.S. Constitution, no state can be created by dividing territory of existing states.\n\n(West Virginia doesn't count because when it was created Virginia was in rebellion and, therefore, not a state.)
42600
1. How thw America got it's independence\n2.Geography or history of aplace with very intresting past. ex. In India Kashmir their has been a war against India and Pakistan for 13 years now on who should get Kashmir's territory.
21725
No provision of the Constitution allows secession.  This was a contested theory, of course, because no state had tried it, and many states thought they still reserved the right to secede.  New England even considered a plan well before the Civil War to secede, under the Hartford Convention of 1814.\n\nThe structure of the Constitution, however, seems to deny a secession theory.  The Constitution may be amended by 3/4 of the states, which means that 1/4 of the states could be bound by a law they did not agree with.  It doesn't seem like that a state could just secede if they wanted to, since the very structure of the Constitution bound states with laws they didn't agree with.\n\nThe Civil War, then, was not "illegal."  The President used troops to prevent a rebellion.  The Confederacy had violated the structure of the Constitution, and it had circumvented legal methods of achieving its desires (e.g., legislation, constitutional amendment).
1072065
Good job! Evidently, you've done your homework! \n\nMany aren't aware that the American Civil War was "NOT" about slavery. Nor are many aware that slaves were still being held as private property in the North during that time. Abraham Lincoln owned a slave during the war, and Union General U.S. Grant owned 4. \n\nThe war was, from the Southern standpoint, over States Rights, i.e., a state had authority over the federal government within it's own borders. And also, to defend against an illegal military invasion from the North. \n\nBut it's always the victors in war that write the history, isn't it?
1184718
It is England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. With the Act of Union 1707, the independent states of England and Scotland, having been in personal union since 1603, agreed to a political union as the Kingdom of Great Britain. \n\nThe Act of Union 1800 united the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland, which had been gradually brought under English control between 1169 and 1691, to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Independence for the now Republic of Ireland in 1922 brought the partition of the island of Ireland, with six of the nine counties of the province of Ulster remaining within the UK, which then changed to the current name in 1927. Wales, under the control of English monarchs from the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284, became part of the Kingdom of England by the Laws in Wales Act 1535 but is normally considered to be a kingdom in its own right having its own legislature.
371896
the Compromise of 1850, thereby repulsing Southern threats of secession while urging Northern support for a stronger law for the recovery of fugitive slaves.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Webster\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850
291714
Scotland is, 400 years after "unification" still solidly independent.  Federalizing the British state strengthens it by making it a voluntary union, rather than a remnant of empire (my ancestors were organizers of the '45 rebellion.  *I* haven't forgotten how the UK was formed, which means that others haven't also).
646952
Some historians have said that the Southern states missed their best chance to win their independence by not seceding in 1850, when the North was less prepared to deal with a crisis of that magnitude.  By waiting until 1861 to try to leave the Union, the Southern states gave the North too much time to grow stronger, and their defeat was almost inevitable.
31534
well, jefferson wrote in the declaration of independence, "when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another... that governments are instituted among men... deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... " as justification for the secession of the colonies from the british empire and the creation of a new state.\n\npresumably the same considerations applied to the people of the southern states and their wish to dissolve the political bands which connected them to the republic, especially as when jefferson continued "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute new government... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government".\n\nseems pretty reasonable to secede from a union based on principles graven in the very document which formed that union.
746429
Define "country".\n\nBy most accounts the answer is 193 - 192 members of the UN, plus  the Vatican.\n\nThen there's stuff like Taiwan, which is de facto independent but doesn't have much of international recognition. There are places like Palestine, which are recognized by some countries but not by all. There are places like South Ossetia, which is pressing for independence from Georgia, which voted for independence, but which isn't having international recognition. There are places like the Western Sahara, which doesn't have a government so much as a war. There are places like Tibet, which by right ought to be independent but was pwnzored by China and hasn't done that much to regain independence. There are places like Sealand, which is a small pier off the coast of Britain that claims independence and runs an essentially law-free and therefore lawsuit-free Internet hosting service.\n\nAnd so forth. If you count the number of named entities which consider themselves independent, it's well over 200. But that's not what most people consider a "country".
387057
Americans are not able to comprehend the complexities of the Catalonian independence movement.  Americans are very likely to equate the autonomous territories in Spain to states in the US.  An American state would never even think about separating from the rest of the union because individual states benefit strongly from the union, not to mention tremendous nationalistic/patriotic sentiment prevalent throughout the entire US population.  Spain is such a small country, and it is hard for Americans to understand how a country about the size of Texas can have so many groups of people that want independence.  Spain is thought of as a single country, so it is strange to hear about so many groups wanting independence.  We don't understand the reasons why Catalonia wants independence.
608816
Trick question.  Virginia split into Virginia and WEST Virginia at the time, when Virginia joined the confederacy, and West Virginia remained in the Union.
23933
During the 1850s, the compromise over land had made the country divided. Not only was it due to slavery, it was the lack of state's rights (that differ from the federal government). President Andrew Jackson even argued with his Vice President that states do not have any reason to disband from the country and its rules after the states have signed the ultimate contract, the Declaration of Independence. The secession of South Carolina demonstrated the frustrations of state's rights and slavery disputes.\n\nIf you need to cite any failed compromises, the biggest one that could be used would be the Missouri Compromise. It was eventually considered as a failure once Dred-Scott jurisdiction contested with it.
834221
Well, each state had to ratify the Constitution before it became effective. So, the debates in each state determined whether the state supported it or not.\n\nSurely, you're looking for something more specific than that.
1024778
Federalism focuses on the idea of a balance between the local individualized governments of the states and the large unified Country-wide government, i.e. our federal government.  Separation of powers can refer to what is constitutionally given to the federal government and what is left to the states.