On the Theoretical Issue of Secession from the Union

umm, we tried the "you go your way, i'll go mine" thing in the 1860's.

didn't work out too well for either side.

The states of the Southern Confederacy advanced the claim (when they bothered to advance a claim at all) that the Xth Amendment to the Constitution authorized secession from the Union. The Xth Amendment reads, in its entirety:

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.

The argument ran that inasmuch as the constitution makes no provision for the expulsion of states from the Union, and does not prohibit secession, any sovereign States has reservesd to it the right to remove itself from the Union.

Lincoln (first Republican President, and President of the United States during the American Civil War) resonded to the crisis by using the constitutional power accorded to Congress in Article I, Section 8, which reads, in part:

Congress shall have the power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

As the States of the Southern Confederacy were considered by the rump of the Congress (refers only to the fact that Southern congressional delegations had walked out, and therefore could no longer vote) to be in a state of insurrection, and Federal agents (customs, Marshalls, etc.) and Federal property (customes houses, fortifications, arsenals, etc.) had been seized, Congress authorized calling out the militia. Subsequently, things got a tad hazy, but the basic theory was that the Southern Confederacy represented an institutional insurrection, authorizing the Commander in Chief to use the Army and Navy to suppress rebellion. That justification was less hazy (in my never humble opinion) than the appeal to the Xth Amendment.

Keep in mind the inflamatory emotions of all involved. Most Southerners gave no thought to a legal justification for their actions, and simply relied upon the concept of a Confederation of Sovereign States. Most Northerners gave no thought to the lucidity of the notion of a nation making war upon itself.

Re: On the Theoretical Issue of Secession from the Union


I don't think so. I tend to think of it more like a large family gathering. People may squabble with each other but at the end of the day they're all family.




It would take a whole lot more than what is going on now to ever get to that point. While we have a Federal level government I think many Europeans tend to see that as being the primary government. I think the state and municiple governments have a whole lot more impact on most people's daily lives than the Federal gov. does.

But, directly to your question - Who knows? If things got to that point both siides just might see splitting as being a better solution that remaining as one.

After the Civil War, many wanted to try Jeff Davis for treason, but because the Constitution is actually written as a document for an alliance of sovereign states, pres Johnson was advised by the Chief Justice that , if we tried jeff Davis, wed probably lose the case. The whole thing starts with the Declaration of Independence, thats a bout as well written a document for secession as one could pen.
I knew that theConnecticut or Rhode Island Federalists tried secession in the 18 teens sometime and it died on the vine so the Civil War had some precedent(set, would probably know this case)

Re: On the Theoretical Issue of Secession from the Union


True, dat . . . most Europeans do not seem to understand just how much we are governed at more local levels than the national.

I nominate this as the crux of the biscuit statement.

IMHO, the thing that most holds us together is a pretty good interstate hiway system, and great barbeque, something that the rest of the world cant even dream of .

well, all that and Frito Pie with an icy cold R.C. Cola.

By the by, Wolf--you should not take this site as exemplary of public discourse in the United States. This sort of venue is exceptional--both because people come here for the purpose of such discussion, and because people are anonymous and individually separated.

Personally, i don't discuss politics in public, unless some borish lout forces it on me. The same with religion. These are matters which simply don't impinge on my social life. Politics are important, of course, in terms of the voters' booth--religion means absolutely nothing in my life, apart from politely getting rid of the bible-thumpers as quickly as possible if they knock on my door.

I believe Massachusetts, in fact, holds the record for most proposals to secede--but don't quote me on that. North Carolina threatened to secede upon a time, perhaps the late 1830s or early 1840s, on the issue of the tarrif--always a bone the Southern throat.

so weve honed it to a high art of politic.
Is there anything to stop secession today, absent the observation that Shelby Foote made at the end of his "coffe table" book on the CW

Whether a State might have the right of secession or not began to crop up early in our political history. Several New England States threatened secession during the War of 1812, and that was a mortal blow to the Federalist Party. During Jackson's time some of the Southern States threatened nullification. That is they threatened to violate Federal laws that they believed were improper and against the interests of their State. Jackson replied without hesitation that he would send troops, and they would comply whether they liked it or not. End of nullification.

Everytime the question of secession came up, the majority opinion was that no State has a Constitutional right of separation. Both President's Buchanan and Lincoln vigorously argued that no State held the power to leave the Union. The various States gave up some of their soveriegnty when the Constitution was ratified, and thereafter were bound to it come what may. There is nothing in the Constitution addressing sessesion, and it is unreasonable to suppose that the Founders would have in adopting the Constitution been so cynical that they would also provide the means of dissolving it. It was meant to be permanent, and was so regarded by the Founders. Generally, Constitutional Lawyers speculate that the Union might be dissolved only through an act of Constitutional Convention ratified by 2/3 of the States. In short the People adopted the Constitution, and only the People as a whole can decide to abandon Constitutional ties.

Neither Lincoln, nor Buchanan, ever admitted that the Confederate States had left the Union. They were instead in a state of insurrection and rebelliion. Lincoln made a serious mis-step at the outset when he announce the blockade of southern ports. That would be a legal recognition of their independance, what he obviously meant was to "close the ports" which retains the soveriegnty of the Union. Oh well, mistakes are more common than not ... especially in a time of war.

Since the end of the American Civil War, no State has ever even suggested secession as a means of protesting any act or policy of the Federal Government. Anything is possible in fantasy land, but as a practical matter, there isn't going to be any new secession movement in this country.

Americans are probably no more patriotic than anyone else. We tend to be very outspoken and vocal in our partisanship. The two great modern Parties are in a continual struggle to capture the votes of the great middle-ground where partisanship is least evident. Capturing the vote of common folk is the key to election victory and political power, so the struggle is often intense. Things were much louder, profane, and corrupt in the past than they are today. Today's political canvass is positively love bites compared to what existed prior to the 20th century.

We are NOT a democracy here, but a Republic with the power of the People invested in elected, appointed and hired representatives. The system is intentionally cumbersome and is the result of many compromises to balance the powers of the State v. the Federal Government; the House against Senate, and Congress as a whole against the Executive. They are elected separately, and the judiciary are appointed, sometimes for life to remove them from partisan pressures. As has been said before many times, "it's a terrible system, but human hands have formed no better".

Our system of government has evolved to meet the various challenges of our history, but essentially it remains the same. Our representatives are generally more law-abiding and dedicated to the Public weal than those of the more distant past, though the stresses on them have greatly increased. What has changed, I think, is that the People have been seduced into the cozy dream that socialist empowerment. We've tended since just before the middle of the 20th century to expect that the Federal government can and should involve itself more aggressively in the life of the People. The Federal government, so goes the thinking, should guarantee that no injustice should ever occur and that morals and ethical laws are the province of the Government in Washington. We have largely abandoned our dedication to personal responsibility, and instead wait loudly for the Federal government to act on our behalf.

Oh well...........

Not bad, until the partisan homily at the end.

not really partisan, more like revisionism.

Yeah, I thought better of it. Unfortunately, you posted before I could edit it out.

By the by, it was South Carolina which threatened to secede over the tarrif--i decided to check my facts.

It is also worth noting that the western counties of Virginia seceded from that State in 1861, and were admitted to the Union as the State of West Virginia in 1863. As well, the State of Maine was formed out of the State of Massachusetts (it was formerly considered a "province") and Virginia ceded the territory which became Kentucky when those boys began to rumble about secession, and the other states twisted their collective arm, pointing to their own cessions of land claims (most notably, Massachusetts, Connecticutt and Pennsylvania, all of whom had notional grants of land stretching to the Pacific Ocean). Those later creations--Maine and Kentucky--are not usually seen as acts of secession, however.

This is interesting. So you'd think if say, California seceded, the US would intervene and prevent a secession (not least because California represents a sizeable chunk of its economy).

The way the US works, they'd probably send troops to 'discourage' it. Actually this is pretty much a given I believe. I wonder to what extent the federal government would go to prevent the secession though. I don't think that if a state's population agreed more or less unanimously pro secession the federal government would be able to do anything, this is highly improbable though. The feds would definitely find another way to get them back in line, some type of economic blackmail.

Although it is not true in absolutely all the states, there are already military bases in most of the states, and, without regard to whether they are Army, Navy or Air Force bases, they all have security forces, which are, notionally, at least, trained in crowd control. Additionally, the Constitution provides for calling out the militia in the event of, among other things, insurrection. The modern-day militia is the Army National Guard, and it has become a commonplace that the national government will "federalize" the national guard at time of need. One might allege that the members of a State's National Guard units which were in sympathy with a secession movement would be unreliable. However, during the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s, the State National Guard forces of more than one Southern state were "federalized" to enforce court orders and/or executive orders, and there was no mutiny.

Were California to attempt secession, it would not only possibly be subject to action by a federalized National Guard--which need only hold on for a a day or two until other forces were assembled--there are also several large naval bases and army bases, and one of the largest bases of the United States Marine Corps there. I really cannot conceive of any state in this age actually passing a secession ordinance, and then attempting to put it into practice. Were that to happen, though, i also would find it hard to believe that the Feds could not quickly squash them.

I trust you understand that i offer no disrespect to you for having and articulating opinions with which i disagree.