Helvidius
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2010
- Messages
- 735
- Reaction score
- 325
- Location
- Good ol' US of A
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
1. Did the southern states have the Constitutional right to secede from the Union?
2. Why did the southern states choose to secede? (economic, political, cultural, etc)
That would be true, if the Union were actually a compact of sovereign entities. But that wasn't the case. No state retained the sovereignty of an independent nation. Instead, they gave up full sovereignty to the Union in return for Federalism. The United States became a country in place of the old Confederate model of "these united States." The Constitution created a national government represented by Federal authority and State authority combined, each sovereign in only specific areas.
An actual sovereign state does many things that the individual united States did not have the ability to do. And it is an inherent right of any national entity to secure its borders and domestic integrity. Unilateral secession is inherently a violation of the right of nations to national integrity.
Moreover, if open rebellion against rightful Federal authority were allowed, the Constitution wouldn't give the Federal government the express duty to put down revolutions. Secession destroys the nation and undermines the balance of Federal and State authority by giving any State ultimate authority.
Quite the contrary, the Confederacy wasn't the beacon of States rights, the heir to the Founders' vision, nor was it exercizing a legal theory of Constitutional secession. It was quite literally a treasonous agency using secession as a blackmail tool for the minority to get everything it wanted by threatening the subversion of Republican institutions and the destruction of the United States as a nation. The South seceded because it could not get everything it wanted through the ballot. The South threatened to secede at least four times, each when it feared it would not get its way: the gag rule crisis, the tariff crisis, over the fugative slave law, and the kansas crisis. There is no moral, or legal, justification for that.
One can't even appeal to the natural right of revolution proposed by the Founders, because the Confederates repudiated it when they stated that theFounders views were horribly flawed and that there were no inalienable rights. But even if we were to argue that secession as a revolutionary rght existed, that doesn't imply a Constitutional legal right to secede.
Confederates were morally, as well as legally, bankrupt.
So then why did the Union accept West Virginia as a member when it seceded from the rest of Virginia? Shouldn't West Virginia just be a part of the Union if Virginia didn't have the right to secede in the first place?
Yes. Amendment X. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits secession, so the right is retained.I searched, but did not find any previous threads addressing this:
1. Did the southern states have the Constitutional right to secede from the Union?
All of the above.2. Why did the southern states choose to secede? (economic, political, cultural, etc)
According to...? Nothing forced a state to join the union, and nothing specifed in the constitution keeps them from leaving - as such, the right is reserved.The X amendment doesn't entail a legal right to revolution or the destruction of the nation. That's not a valid right in the first place, legally.
False. Secession and rebellion are different things, each can exist independent of one another.It's actually contradicted by the Constitution, which authorizes the national government to put down rebellions, of which unilaterial secession certainly is.
Good thing that's not what I'm arguing.It's a common misconception that the X Amendment gives a right to secession
Secession is a necessary part of Federalism, where the association with the group is voluntary. Secession derives from the fact that, ultimately, the states are sovereign and that the federal government is created by a voluntary association of those sovereign states. Without that voluntary association, there is no Federalism.Secession also negates the concept of Federalism and balance of powers. Any state can ultimately check any Federal power, legitimate or otherwise, and the entire Republican system by itself if secession wereallowed. That was clearly not the intention of the Founders.
The constituion does not prohibit secession. Rights not prohibited are retained.The Constitution doesn't even allow...
According to...? Nothing forced a state to join the union, and nothing specifed in the constitution keeps them from leaving - as such, the right is reserved.
False. Secession and rebellion are different things, each can exist independent of one another.
Secession is a necessary part of Federalism, where the association with the group is voluntary. Secession derives from the fact that, ultimately, the states are sovereign and that the federal government is created by a voluntary association of those sovereign states. Without that voluntary association, there is no Federalism.
The constituion does not prohibit secession. Rights not prohibited are retained.
Good thing that's not what I'm arguing.
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
-10th Amendment
The Constitution doesn't mention secession. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the states.
It doesn't need to mention it explictly. It's contradicted via inference from what is said. An inherent right of any sovereign nation is the protection of his enemies external and internally and domestic integity. Allowing unilateral secession violates the right of nations. And that's indeed why the Federal government has sole authority to put down rebellions to its rightful authority.
The doctrine of implied powers is relevant, as it is necessary and proper to the execution of the Federal government's duties to prevent States from destroying the union and subverting the Republc.
In fact, one can argue that secession is tantamount to putting the remaining states in economc and military danger from competiting powers ,and thus an issue of national security.
Preventing secession isn't mentioned or implied anywhere in the Constitution as an inherent right. You can think that secession should be illegal for these reasons, but there is no legal framework backing it up.
Secession could merely be another inefficiency in the federal government put in by the Founders like separation of powers and federalism.
By this argument, the government could do anything it wanted for national security.
Indeed, it's not mentioned. It doesn't need to be. A Bank of the United States isn't mentioned either, but it's still Constitutioinal. Hamiltonianism at its finest.
The Federal government has a duty to enforce Federal laws on the states as well as to secure national defense and integrity. Allowing secession contradicts the prime directive of a national defense. Secessionists are literally enemies of the State and domestic criminals revolutionaries. It entails forceful separation from the rest of a country by entities that gave up their full sovereignty long ago.
Unfortunately, the Father of the Constitution has just the opposite interpretation. Have you read Madison's view on Secession? He clearly states there is no intended, or implied, power of Secession on behalf of the states as a legal mechanism. ONly a natural right of citizens to revolt against oppressive governments. Why do Libertarians worship the Founders, except for when they contradict politically correct viewpoints?
But we don't even need to take the authority of the author of the document. We need only look at how secession is a contradiction of the entire concept the Founders created and makes national integrity impossible.
We can also look toward the Northwest Ordinance, which stipulated a perpetual union, to which all the states existing agreed.
Why do Libertarians worship the Founders, except for when they contradict politically correct viewpoints?
THis is obvious an instance wherein national security would apply. Allowing secession really does threaten the existence of the nation and weakens it abroad. It's absurd for any nation to allow it, and the Founders weren't fools. They did not design a system such that any state could ignore the balance of power at will by threatening secession and set into motion a chain of events that wuld certainly destroy the Republic. Every president has a duty to defend the Constitution and the country from domestic and foreign threats. Rebels who want to run off with a part of the country constitutes a real clearand present danger.
The confederacy didn't like the results of an election, so it blackmailed the country to try to get its way. When it didn't get its way, it subverted the democratic process and engaged in armed rebellion and theft of government property. How is that not illegal?
Do you seriously think the founders allowed rampant treason as right? There is no difference between a foreign power that conquers part of the United States, and 11 states leaving at the point of a gun. Both steal territory, investments, etc.
Even so, the secession doesn't even take into consideration the citizens who live in the State. They have no say.
What about federal property inside the States that decide to go rogue? Do you think they are going to allow federal property inside a hostile nation that left in armed rebellion?
The South STOLE US property in leaving, inherently. THey confiscated material, infrastructure, forts, ships, weapons, etc. This is unavoidable unless all parties agree, an all parties did not agree.
I really don't see how you can see secession as a "rule" that is legitimate, because it inherently violates the rights of sovereign nations, as recognized by the Constitution. No nation can survive if it allows self-destruction via internal revolution. Every government, including the United States, has a duty to protect the people from internal and external forces seeking to destroy the country. A state is no different.
The potential right of secession is invalidated legally as it conflicts with Federal duties, powers of higher authority.
Edit: The entire concept is also unworkably impractical. There is nearly no way unilateral secession would ever result in a peaceful dissolution. It only works if all parties agree, and if all parties do not agree, there is no alternative but theft and war. The Confederate incidents of theft and conflict are almost inevitable. For example, pretend you are New Jersey, and I am the United States. I own property in NJ, (Fort Dix, McQuire, Fort Monmouth, etc) and I have financed internal improvements through collective investment of taxes from other states.
You want to leave, but I do not want to give up my property and investments in NJ. I won't sell or give the property over to you, a new power. If you were to try to secede, you cannot really tolerate pockets of a foreign power (Me) inside your country (arsenals, forts, etc). Therefore, in order to actually secede successfully, you must, by definition, declare war to justify the theft my property (weapons, citizens, land, etc0 I will not give up voluntarily.
Secession requires that everyone else agree to your demands, which is coercion.
Ergo, in order to practically secede, you must attack me. Just like the Confederates did at Fort Sumter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?