Right of secession

Yes, the states had the right to secede. No federal constitutional permission necessary. The Constitution was written by the states to specifically spell out what powers they, as sovereign, would allow the federal government to exercise. I'm not sure about some of the bogus amendments drafted after the war - whether they addressed secession or not - but it was the UNConstitutional civil war that stole that right.

 

Matt - this was a debate issue long before the war began and continues to be an issue today. Some have argued that it was once legal but no longer is while others would argue it still is and still others would say that under the Articles of Confederation it was but not under the Constitution.

There have been several near-secessions in US history, several NE states threatened it during the War of 1812, SC threatened it over nullification (specifically, tarrif bills), and so on.

Legality in the Constitutional sense or in the "moral" sense of the people, I would argue with the great anti-secessionist, Abe Lincoln, myself who said "Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right." Given that the colonies could secede from the UK in the first place, I think its rather obvious but maybe I'm not as smart as all those yankees that would disagree with me - we southerners generally being unschooled hicks if you are led by stereotypes

 

The alleged right of secession is hypothetical only, since it has never been exercised successfully.

The Constitution is not a pact of the states, as one reader alleged. The Preamble states that 'We, the People . . . . ' NOT 'We ,the States . . . . . ', There was, if I recall my history correctly, a debate at the Constitutional Covention over this wording, and the 'We, the People . . . . ' wording carried the day.

Why would anyone want to seriously consider secession as a right, any way? What's the point? For a state or group of states to do so would be treason.

Alexander

 

The Lincoln Revolution nullified the Dec. of Inde. and demonstrated the general principle that God is on the side with the most cannon.

The "American Revolution" was a secession because the Americans had no interest in controlling Whitehall. The Constitutional Convention and the Lincoln Revolutions because they changed our form of govt.

We can't even know our laws because we are ruled by secret presidental orders. The one thing the right wing wackos have correct is that we have been under marshall law since WW2.

 

While I tend to be against secession, these words could be interpreted as justification:

 

Many States stipulated in their documents to ratify the Constitution that they would join the union "SO LONG" as it benefited the people of their state, VA was one as I recall, the others, I've forgot.

But a "FREE PEOPLE" can "Change/withdraw" from any government "THEY ESTABLISH/CONTROL".

 

</font>[/QUOTE]

Problem? The world and most especially the American public is not candid.

 

"Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"

Notice that this could be interpreted as God being subject to Nature? It could be rewritten, "Nature's Laws and God."

 

Au contrare',

Any powers not mentioned fall into the category of the bolded part above! - Self explanatory!!

I think "A" says it all.

 

How about IRS, DHEC, HUD, DOEd, BATF, etc, etc, etc, for starters?

How about a judiciary that makes laws rather than interpreting the law?

How about an executive branch that can by "executive order" make "stroke of the pen; law of the land - kinda cool"?

How about a legislature that makes many laws that benefit only the highest bidders to their campaigns?

How about non-elected agency's that have the power to decide that your farm is a wetland, so you can no longer farm it, can't sell it, but you CAN still pay the taxes on it?

Most anything that gov't is, that is not covered by the constitution.

I'm sure that others can add voraciously to this limited list!!!

 

One things for sure. The great American dictator Lincoln forever ensured that we and our children will be subjects to the empire for all our lives.
I will retain my membership in the Sons of confederate veterans and the League of the south in honor of both of my great great grandfathers who fought bravely in the Virginia infantry and suffered in Union prison camps. They were great men who did what they could to save us from this federal monstrocity that we all suffer under today.

 

What can of worms did you wish to open???

There are many different views of whether the South's secession in 1860 and 1861 was legal or not. Yet, in the Constitution, admission to the Union via statehood is spelled out, but no mode of departure/secession is addressed. The Constitution does say that each state is free and independent and retains its sovereignty. The states that did Secede used this to infer that there was a ecession right.

In 1828, Congress imposed a series of tariffs on the import trade (because the South's economy depended mostly on farming and trade with Europe, these tariffs were veiwed as unfair, causing more money to leave the South than to be brought in because their imports cost more than their exports). Known as the Tariff of Abominations, the South spent $331 million on imports while the North spent $31 million, due to the fact that the South did more trade with Europeans than the North. Since the tariffs could not be abolished, Southern states passed Nullification Laws, and threatened secession to protect their economy. Northerners argued that secession was neither permitted constitutionally, nor was it a proper way to deal with unfair tariffs. The North believed that the Nullification Acts were unfair to the North. Attempts by Congress to provide solutions failed.

The tariff issue was by no means new. In 1832, a state convention in South Carolina declared a high protective tariff null and void. President Andrew Jackson threatened to send federal troops into Charleston to ensure enforcement of the tariff; but a compromise tariff was worked out before force was actually used. The next time the issue came to a head, the South threatned secession from the Union. In response to many culminating events, but particularly the election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency, South Carolina started the ball rolling for secession.

By the early 1800s, the North and South had very different beliefs, life styles, and economies. Northerners worked mainly in factories, manufacturing goods such as tools and clothing to sell to other parts of the country and lived in crowded cities. Most Northerners opposed slavery and believed it to be wrong although many were also strongly racist. In the South, most of the white population lived on plantations and farms of varying sizes, growing tobacco, cotton, and cash crops that they sold mainly to Europe. Southerners supported slavery and the theory of states' rights. All of these differences created a rift that divided the country and grew as time went on.

Many Southerners favored the idea of secession and supported it with the theory of states' rights which says that each state is independent and has the power to decide whether Congress passes laws that are unconstitutional. The supporters of states' rights held that the national government was a league of independent states, any of which had the right to secede.

In the Constitution the Bill of Rights prevents the government from taking a citizen's property from them. Since slaves were viewed as the property of the slave holder, and since northern states refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, thus denying the South of their property, southerners used this part of the Constitution to defend their secession.

Northern states referred to Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution that reads "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation... or coin money... No state shall lay any Imposts or duties on imports or exports... No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war unless invaded..." to point to actions of the South they deemed in violation.

After the War ended, several cases covering the topic were heard. Though it may have seemed moot to many, in 1869, the Supreme Court declared that secession was unconstitutional (Texas v White, 74 U.S. 700). Several other caes followed that confirmed the same.

 

What can of worms did you wish to open???

There are many different views of whether the South's secession in 1860 and 1861 was legal or not. Yet, in the Constitution, admission to the Union via statehood is spelled out, but no mode of departure/secession is addressed. The Constitution does say that each state is free and independent and retains its sovereignty. The states that did Secede used this to infer that there was a ecession right.

In 1828, Congress imposed a series of tariffs on the import trade (because the South's economy depended mostly on farming and trade with Europe, these tariffs were veiwed as unfair, causing more money to leave the South than to be brought in because their imports cost more than their exports). Known as the Tariff of Abominations, the South spent $331 million on imports while the North spent $31 million, due to the fact that the South did more trade with Europeans than the North. Since the tariffs could not be abolished, Southern states passed Nullification Laws, and threatened secession to protect their economy. Northerners argued that secession was neither permitted constitutionally, nor was it a proper way to deal with unfair tariffs. The North believed that the Nullification Acts were unfair to the North. Attempts by Congress to provide solutions failed.

The tariff issue was by no means new. In 1832, a state convention in South Carolina declared a high protective tariff null and void. President Andrew Jackson threatened to send federal troops into Charleston to ensure enforcement of the tariff; but a compromise tariff was worked out before force was actually used. The next time the issue came to a head, the South threatned secession from the Union. In response to many culminating events, but particularly the election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency, South Carolina started the ball rolling for secession.

By the early 1800s, the North and South had very different beliefs, life styles, and economies. Northerners worked mainly in factories, manufacturing goods such as tools and clothing to sell to other parts of the country and lived in crowded cities. Most Northerners opposed slavery and believed it to be wrong although many were also strongly racist. In the South, most of the white population lived on plantations and farms of varying sizes, growing tobacco, cotton, and cash crops that they sold mainly to Europe. Southerners supported slavery and the theory of states' rights. All of these differences created a rift that divided the country and grew as time went on.

Many Southerners favored the idea of secession and supported it with the theory of states' rights which says that each state is independent and has the power to decide whether Congress passes laws that are unconstitutional. The supporters of states' rights held that the national government was a league of independent states, any of which had the right to secede.

In the Constitution the Bill of Rights prevents the government from taking a citizen's property from them. Since slaves were viewed as the property of the slave holder, and since northern states refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, thus denying the South of their property, southerners used this part of the Constitution to defend their secession.

Northern states referred to Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution that reads "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation... or coin money... No state shall lay any Imposts or duties on imports or exports... No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war unless invaded..." to point to actions of the South they deemed in violation.

After the War ended, several cases covering the topic were heard. Though it may have seemed moot to many, in 1869, the Supreme Court declared that secession was unconstitutional (Texas v White, 74 U.S. 700). Several other caes followed that confirmed the same. </font>[/QUOTE]In the proud and sovereign state of South Carolina, we say, "If at first you don't secede, then try, try again." We really don't care what the Yankee Supreme Court said in 1869. Remember that we were still disenfranchised under the cruel heel of Reconstruction. There is a strong current of secessionist sympathies in the body politic of SC today. The SCV and LoS wield enough clout to elect politicians and to bring down politicians.

 

You sound like my ex wife. When our child does something great, it's "look at our daughter". When she does something she doesn't like, it's "look what your daughter did". Sorry, but SCOTUS is your SCOTUS as much as it is mine, and no less. You can't pick and choose which rulings you choose to live under, and which you can't. Yes, you can dislike them, and denounce them, but you live under the Constitution as a whole. If you want the right to secede, and since SCOTUS has already on numerous ocaisions determined that there is no such right in the Constitution, you're welcome to amend the Constitution to spell out secession procedures.