• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Do States have the right to secede?

sailordeac said:
Kind of interesting how a question about the right of states to secede has taken off in the direction of vague speculations about whether or not any state could economically afford to secede.
Click to expand...

Guilty. I guess my sense of the relationship between the two is wondering how many could and would seriously consider it.
 
When we declared independence from England, the founding fathers were careful not to be hypocrits regarding potential future revolts and allowed for them in the DOI. The "right to revolt: was a pretty strong sentiment of the time, and written in many early state constitutions as well.

While SC was dead wrong regarding slavery, I think they had the right to secede, and view Ft Sumter as SC property - not US property. Clearly, you can't have a fort of a foreign government in your harbor. The Feds should have left when given the chance. I think the fact that SC was wrong on slavery obscures how they were right on other points.

Lincoln undermines the intentions of the founding fathers, and ignores the critical "consent of the governed." Using a marriage analogy, Lincoln dragged by the hair a divorce-seeking wife back home.
 
awaken said:
When we declared independence from England, the founding fathers were careful not to be hypocrits regarding potential future revolts and allowed for them in the DOI. The "right to revolt: was a pretty strong sentiment of the time, and written in many early state constitutions as well.

While SC was dead wrong regarding slavery, I think they had the right to secede, and view Ft Sumter as SC property - not US property. Clearly, you can't have a fort of a foreign government in your harbor. The Feds should have left when given the chance. I think the fact that SC was wrong on slavery obscures how they were right on other points.

Lincoln undermines the intentions of the founding fathers, and ignores the critical "consent of the governed." Using a marriage analogy, Lincoln dragged by the hair a divorce-seeking wife back home.
Click to expand...



Awaken - Do you think it's possible to have a democracy if people simply secede when they disagree with the majority?

People may have a right to rebel but does that mean the government has no right to try to quell that rebellion? Lincoln took an oath to preserve the union, it was his responsibility to do so. It was not the responsibility of anyone in the South to break up the union.

The Northwest Ordinance, written by one founding father, Thomas Jefferson, and signed by another, George Washington, specifically outlawed slavery in western territories. Were the Southerners not undermining the intentions of the founders when they spread slavery to western territories and insisted on continuing to do so?

Furthermore, the fathers did not speak of secession, so it might be very misleading to infer that they were for it. Why would the fathers have been interested in breaking up the state that they had risked their lives to bring into being. The existence of the state on the other hand implies perpetuity. And this would particularly be the case with a democracy.

The marriage analogy in your application is very misleading. Indeed, it would seem to support Lincoln's point that secession was only possible if both parties agreed. A divorce requires mutual consent, if there is no mutual agreement, a higher authority, the state can still grant one. What would be the higher authority that would grant secession, if it was not mutually agreed to?

Marriage can also be viewed as a contract. Just as the entry of a state into the union can be viewed as a contract. Contracts can be broken up with mutual consent. If this is lacking and one party does not honor the contract unilaterally, the other is entitled to try to force them to honor it.



I really like the South and southerners but they were wrong on both slavery and secession.
 
All South Carolinians were also citizens of the United States. The US had the right to protect its citizens SC who didn't want to create their own country.

There probably hasn't been a stronger states' rights Justice since the civil rights movement than Scalia. Even he says states don't have the right to secede.
 
Many of the states who originally ratified the Constitution included signing statements reserving the right to secede if the compact did not work. If a state votes to secede, why shouldn't it be allowed to leave? Does Bosnia have a right to exist as a separate country? We killed people to make it so.
 
sailordeac said:
Awaken - Do you think it's possible to have a democracy if people simply secede when they disagree with the majority?
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."

People may have a right to rebel but does that mean the government has no right to try to quell that rebellion? Lincoln took an oath to preserve the union, it was his responsibility to do so. It was not the responsibility of anyone in the South to break up the union. Lincoln took an oath to preserve the Constitution, which is silent on secession. The responsiblity of the South: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

The Northwest Ordinance, written by one founding father, Thomas Jefferson, and signed by another, George Washington, specifically outlawed slavery in western territories. Were the Southerners not undermining the intentions of the founders when they spread slavery to western territories and insisted on continuing to do so? fwiw, the NW Ordinance pre-dates the Constitution, so I am not sure how/if laws under the Articles of Confederation carried over. The slavery issue was known and not dealt with by our FF. The NW Ordinance is them kicking the can down the road (much like our politicians today with the deficit). Yes, the South was trying to make sure new states were slave states so their interests could be protected in the Senate.

Furthermore, the fathers did not speak of secession, so it might be very misleading to infer that they were for it. See DOI. Why would the fathers have been interested in breaking up the state that they had risked their lives to bring into being. Because they realized that their creation could be corrupted into tyranny. The existence of the state on the other hand implies perpetuity. And this would particularly be the case with a democracy. The Articles of Confederation say that, but not the Constitution. Where are you getting this?

The marriage analogy in your application is very misleading. Indeed, it would seem to support Lincoln's point that secession was only possible if both parties agreed. A divorce requires mutual consent, if there is no mutual agreement, a higher authority, the state can still grant one. What would be the higher authority that would grant secession, if it was not mutually agreed to? I suppose the same higher authority that granted our independence from England.

Marriage can also be viewed as a contract. Just as the entry of a state into the union can be viewed as a contract. Contracts can be broken up with mutual consent. If this is lacking and one party does not honor the contract unilaterally, the other is entitled to try to force them to honor it. Again, I think the DOI speaks to this.

I really like the South and southerners but they were wrong on both slavery and secession.
Click to expand...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


1) If this does not grant the right to secede, if not openly revolt, (secession being the more peaceful of the two options), then what is it saying?

2) Was the US right to secede from England? If yes, then how is it different for the South?
 
""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."


1) If this does not grant the right to secede, if not openly revolt, (secession being the more peaceful of the two options), then what is it saying?

Then what do say about the inherent contradiction of "being endowed by their creator, etc" with allowing slavery. You can't get any farther from "life, liberty and pursiot of happiness" than being owned by someone else. I you can't take it literally for part it, you can't it that way if it suits your purtpose.

2) Was the US right to secede from England? If yes, then how is it different for the South

If you are strict constructionist, you can't put something into the Constitution just because you want it to be there. It was clear in those days that people thought of themselves first as Virginians than Americans. If the Founders wanted secession, they would have mentioned it just like they did for all the other amendments.
 
But we all know that the Constitution was written in a certain way to allow for the institution of slavery without openly supporting it.
 
sailordeac said:
Lincoln did it better than I could. In a nutshell, in a democracy everybody ends up in the minority on this or that issue from time to time. If everybody left when they ended up in the minority on some issue they thought important, then eventually there would be no one left and no democracy. Lincoln elaborated on this point in many speeches, and it's obviously more complicated than this. But during the Gettysburg Address he put it most eloquently in his explanation for why the United States was fighting the Civil War, "... and that government of the people, for the people, and by the people shall not perish from the earth."
Click to expand...

Wake Professor Robert Utley would agree with this. Individual states don't have the "right" to secede from the union.
 
Why does it matter if a state has the right or not? If a state secedes, it's saying it is no longer a part of the U.S. therefore, it is refusing to abide by U.S. laws. You can't hold Mexico accountable to the U.S. constitution just as you couldn't hold a seceding state accountable to a federal system it has cast off.

The real issue is what would the U.S. response be? Does the constitution allow the use of military force to prevent secession? Would today's citizens allow the use of military force?

Personally, I do not think it would be an issue. Economic sanctions and travel restrictions could deal with most issues (although enforcing travel restrictions would be expensive). Texas would find importing good expensive if the U.S. put a trade embargo on them and refused to allow Texas bound flights to fly through U.S. airspace or ships to travel U.S. waterways. Yes, Texas would still have Mexico and some rights to travel ways in the Gulf, but it would be very restrictive and costly. When people who chose to stay in Texas (and give up U.S. citizenship, which the U.S. has disallowed dual citizenship in the past in certain cases) find that their Texas passport is not accepted for travel into the U.S., they might reconsider their choice to secede as well.
 
DeacAlum2001 said:
Why does it matter if a state has the right or not? If a state secedes, it's saying it is no longer a part of the U.S. therefore, it is refusing to abide by U.S. laws. You can't hold Mexico accountable to the U.S. constitution just as you couldn't hold a seceding state accountable to a federal system it has cast off.

The real issue is what would the U.S. response be? Does the constitution allow the use of military force to prevent secession? Would today's citizens allow the use of military force?.
Click to expand...

The right of secession matters. A state has no more "right" to declare itself independent than a single person does. If a person just decides they don't have to pay taxes anymore, they get put in jail. When a state decides it doesn't have to recognize federal power anymore, it gets a Civil War and General Sherman burns it the fuck down. States can't just leave when an election doesn't go their way, which is what happened when Lincoln was elected. The Constitution did not outlaw slavery, but it certainly didn't support it.
 
Last edited:
In a nutshell the issue is where to assign sovereignty. If each individual state is sovereign, then the United States becomes simply a temporary alliance to suit mutual momentary convenience, just like any international alliance. If the federal government is sovereign, then a state may secede only with the mutual agreement of the other states. Perhaps the states could be considered as sovereign under the Articles of Confederation but under the Constitution the federal government must be considered as sovereign. Otherwise the Constitution makes no sense.
 
I don't know 'bout the secession thing, but I'm not at all sure I'd vote against throwing SC out.
 
sailordeac said:
In a nutshell the issue is where to assign sovereignty. If each individual state is sovereign, then the United States becomes simply a temporary alliance to suit mutual momentary convenience, just like any international alliance. If the federal government is sovereign, then a state may secede only with the mutual agreement of the other states. Perhaps the states could be considered as sovereign under the Articles of Confederation but under the Constitution the federal government must be considered as sovereign. Otherwise the Constitution makes no sense.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court maintains that both states and the feds are sovereign "in their respective spheres." The difficulty is drawing that line. Ever since the new deal, it's seemed like the fed sphere completely overtakes the state sphere, but the state sphere is technically still there.
 
ProfessorDeac said:
The Supreme Court maintains that both states and the feds are sovereign "in their respective spheres." The difficulty is drawing that line. Ever since the new deal, it's seemed like the fed sphere completely overtakes the state sphere, but the state sphere is technically still there.
Click to expand...


So professor, according to the Supreme Court in which sphere are the states sovereign and in which is the federal government? Surely the Supreme Court does not say that individual states are sovereign in dissolving the union?
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
The right of secession matters. A state has no more "right" to declare itself independent than a single person does. If a person just decides they don't have to pay taxes anymore, they get put in jail. When a state decides it doesn't have to recognize federal power anymore, it gets a Civil War and General Sherman burns it the fuck down. States can't just leave when an election doesn't go their way, which is what happened when Lincoln was elected. The Constitution did not outlaw slavery, but it certainly didn't support it.
Click to expand...

I agree with your point about how secession can be a bad thing but that's not my point when I say it doesn't matter. My point is that if a state secedes and refuses to acknowledge U.S. law, including the law that governs secession, they don't care if they have the right. By seceding, the state is saying it refuses to acknowledge that law. The analogy of an individual does not fit, since an individual cannot secede from the U.S. unless they leave the U.S. In this case, they renounce their citizenship, which happens all the time. If they try to stay in the U.S. they will simply be brought to court and lose. They do not have the strength to back up the secession. But if a state were to secede, it would take a civil war, which I am not sure the American people would support. It was one thing in 1860, but 150 years later, the political landscape has changed.
 
I'm pretty sure Texas has an explicit right to secede. After winning its independence from Mexico (with American help), Texas formed an independent republic. It then joined the U.S. by treaty, which contained a provision allowing it to leave the Union.
 
a short FAQ with a definite POV re Texas secession
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

wiki answers says both "no," per 14th Amendment; and "yes," per consent of the governed
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_Texas_secede_from_the_union

posrep to DeacAlum2001 for what I consider the best answer on this thread so far: you can try secession, but you have to back it up militarily. That's the difference between American Revolution and Confederate Secession. Might makes right; winners write history. Real talk.

Low marks to Alito for referencing Pledge of Allegiance, and arrogance that seceeding states would (have to) petition SCOTUS, and forgetting consent of the governed and power resides in the people. I hope his reply was in jest.

Low marks to rj for using nullification (weak sauce), and forgetting the 10th Amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top