Is Secession Legal?

Many people have stated that secession is illegal and not allowed as determined by the American Civil War. But is it really? Throughout the history of the United States our government has supported the independence/secession of states/territories/colonies from various other nations.

Haiti seceded from the French empire through a slave revolt. South Sudan broke from Sudan. Yugoslavia broke into several countries and later Kosovo seceded from Serbia. Czechoslovakia split into two countries. The Soviet split into quite a few countries. The UK left the European Union. And many others….

So why do people say secession is illegal in the United States? There’s nothing in the US Constitution that mentions secession. The Tenth Amendment states “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.” Using my logic this means that since the issue of secession is not given to the federal government it is reserved to the states or the people themselves to determine. I’ve read the constitution of my own state (Texas) and secession is not mentioned at all. This even furthers my belief that is should be determined by the people.

If I were to join a club and did not like what the club became, I would be well within my rights to quit that club. If I go to see a movie and don’t like it, I can walk out. So why would anyone believe that the United States is a “once you’re in you can’t leave” type of deal? When someone doesn’t like the state in which they live they are free to move to another state or even another country.

If secession/independence/splitting up is supported for other people in the world why is it not ok for citizens of the United States? And yes, I know that politicians are garbage and want to maintain their power and control. So please give me your opinion on whether it is legal or not and why you think that way? But please spare me the “if it’s broke, we don’t run away, we fix it” argument. At this point I am fairly certain that it is not repairable.

rustbucket: "Ah, you are wavering a bit. Good."

Nonsense, my views are the same as they've been.

rustbucket: "You have been asserting for years that the Southern state's reasons or causes for secession were equivalent to "at pleasure."
That is your personal opinion."

And not just my opinion, also that of such Doughfaced Southern sympathizers as President Buchanan.

"In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties.
If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States...

Secession is neither more nor less than revolution.
It may or it may not be a justifiable revolution, but still it is revolution."

Or, if you prefer Thomas Jefferson, his word for it was "scission":

"...if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the union, no federal government can ever exist.
if to rid ourselves of the present rule of Massachusets & Connecticut, we break the union, will the evil stop there?
suppose the N. England states alone cut off, will our natures be changed? are we not men still to the South of that, & with all the passions of men?
immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania & a Virginia party arise in the residuary confederacy, and the public mind will be distracted with the same party spirit.
what a game too will the one party have in their hands by eternally threatening the other that unless they do so & so, they will join their Northern neighbors.
if we reduce our Union to Virginia & N. Carolina, immediately the conflict will be established between the representatives of these two states, and they will end by breaking into their simple units.
seeing therefore that an association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry, seeing that we must have somebody to quarrel with, I had rather keep our New-England associates for that purpose, than to see our bickerings transferred to others....

...it is true that in the mean time we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war, & long oppressions of enormous public debt.
but who can say what would be the evils of a scission and when & where they would end?
better keep together as we are, hawl off from Europe as soon as we can & from all attachments to any portions of it, and if we feel their power just sufficiently to hoop us together, it will be the happiest situation in which we can exist."

Oh, but, but, you might say: what about all the quotes where Jefferson seems to support some theoretical "scission"?
Sure, theoretically, but when faced with his own actual secession crisis -- Aaron Burr's attempt to secede with Louisiana -- Jefferson had Burr arrested and tried for treason.
So much for Jefferson & "scission".

Nor is it simply opinion -- the fact is that Southerners ruled over Washington, DC, almost continuously for 60 years before 1860, it was their capital and they made the rules.
And up to the election in November 1860 they had no remote reason to secede.
So what changed in November 1860?
Answer: absolutely nothing, except the election of Lincoln's Black Republicans.
But they had not yet taken office and had done nothing to change the "happiness" of any Southerner.
In any normal court of law secessionists' case would be thrown out because they lacked standing -- no harm had yet been done to them, nor was there reason to think it might be.

rustbucket: "The English king did that to America in the 1770s-1783s.
Lincoln did that to the South in the 1860s to coerce them back into the Union."

Come on, rusty, you can do better than that.
Our 1776 Declaration of Independence spoke of events which had already happened, they were the reasons which made separation necessary.
But in November 1860 no such remotely similar events had made Southern secession "necessary".
So by standards of our Founders, and by many as sympathetic as President Buchanan in 1860, Southern Fire Eaters were declaring secession at pleasure, and that was revolution.

rustbucket: "Lincoln said on several occasions to different people that he wouldn't seek peace with the South, he needed the revenue."

None of those quotes are validated, all are reported by people who hated Lincoln and supported the Confederacy, none represent Lincoln's actual written words.
And the fact is that Federal tariff revenues from Confederate ports totaled no more than 10% of total revenues, so a war costing $billions to save a few million dollars per year made no sense.
Which is why such words put into Lincoln's mouth amount to no more than, for example, anti-military words put into President Trump's mouth by Democrats who hate him.

rustbucket: "This all reminds me of what Hamilton... said in the New York ratification convention"

In your quote Hamilton is speaking about a hypothetical situation which, in fact, never arose.
But in historical fact, Hamilton supported President Washington's military actions against the Whiskey Rebellion and against British supported Indians in the Northwest Territories.
He also supported the Alien & Sedition Acts and hoped to command President Adams' armies against the French Quasi War.

Nowhere did Hamilton, or any other Founder, propose or support unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.

rustbucket: "Nice guy, that Lincoln, causing 600,000 to 700,000 deaths in the war so that he could have revenue and protect the Northern economy from those rascally seceding states that in February 1861 had decided to use basically the same tariff as the United States. "

Sorry, but that's just garbage-talk, typical Democrat hate-speech.
The real fact is those "rascally seceding states" first provoked war, then started war, then formally declared war and waged war against the United States for four years, refusing to stop fighting for any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.
That's on them, specifically Jefferson Davis, not Lincoln.

rustbucket: "As you know, the Constitution does not outlaw secession."

But it does make provisions against rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasion and/or treason.
And it specifically defines "treason" as:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Bottom line: no Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
In November 1860 there was no material change in Federal government that suddenly made unilateral secessions "necessary".
Those secessions were, in fact, at pleasure.

[You quoting President Buchanan]:

"In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. . . . "

And here is Madison in Federalist #39 (which I quoted before):

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act."

I discovered just now that I did not respond to a comment you made in Post 294 about something I posted in Post 288 about what Madison said in the minutes of the Virginia Ratification Convention. Here is what Madison is recorded as saying:

"An observation fell from a gentleman, on the same side with myself, which deserves to be attended to. If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."

In your response you argued:

I think that alleged quote is disputed and was never later acknowledged by Madison himself.
The word here used is "dissatisfied", only one step removed from "annoyed by" or "in disagreement with", suggesting any minor dispute might result in secession -- Madison never agreed to that, but maintained the clear distinction between "necessity" and "at pleasure".

Madison was responding to Patrick Henry's argument that the Southern states would be outvoted in the Union what with 7 Northern states and 6 Southern states (as counted back then). So, Madison's response deals directly with Henry's argument. It had nothing do do with your assertion Madison always made a "distinction between 'necessity' and 'at pleasure' ". You seem to have have "at pleasure" on your mind. Statements of what the Southern states decided were "necessary" for their secession are always interpreted by you as "at pleasure." I doubt that any of the seceding states considered them that. I give you an 'A' for consistency in your responses though.

In Madison's statement above about "a gentleman on the same side with myself," Madison was referring to a statement by the President of the Virginia Ratifying Convention who had said (my emphasis below):

"Where is the cause of alarm? We, the people, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure happiness: and suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end; where is the cause of alarm on that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and quiet method of reforming what may be found amiss.... we will assemble in Convention; wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them so as to prevent such abuse; and punish those servants who have perverted powers, designed for our happiness, to their own emolument."

And that is exactly what Virginia did in 1861. In 1861, Virginia did assemble in Convention, and they did recall their delegated powers. In 1861, they did cite and use the Virginia reassume powers of governance statement written by Madison, Marshall, and three other Federalists and issued in the 1788 ratification document.

And I find I need to correct you on another thing you said in Post 294:

rustbucket quoting Madison Federalist #46: "Were the plan of the [Philadelphia] convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union."

I cited Federalist #45, not #46. And you followed my citation with:

Right, Madison is here talking about voting & mutual consent, not unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, which no Founder ever proposed or supported.

Need I say it? There you go again.

You cite Thomas Jefferson. So can I. Here is Thomas Jefferson to John Breckinridge, 12 August 1803 [Source, bold emphasis added]:

"the future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mispi states will be our sons. we leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. we think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mispi descendants? it is the elder & the younger son differing. god bless them both, & keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better."

I shall be out of pocket for perhaps a week. On the road again, per Willie Nelson. Even in these Covid times. See you later.

rustbucket quoting Madison: "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act."

Thirteen states joined in happy-hippie Union at pleasure:

Sure, just as marriage is (usually) a voluntary act between adults, easy to do, not so easy to get out of.
Madison certainly never intended to mean that the Union of states was a "free love" affair, a mere hippie-dippy "commune" of states where they might come & go as they wished, at pleasure.

rustbucket: "Madison was responding to Patrick Henry's argument that the Southern states would be outvoted in the Union what with 7 Northern states and 6 Southern states (as counted back then).
So, Madison's response deals directly with Henry's argument.
It had nothing do do with your assertion Madison always made a "distinction between 'necessity' and 'at pleasure'. "

Again, the key word in that alleged Madison quote is "dissatisfied", only slightly stronger than "annoyed with" or "disagree with" and in no-way equivalent to our Founders' Declaration of Independence word, "necessary" or "necessity".
Indeed, "dissatisfied" for all practical purposes is indistinguishable from "at pleasure", and therefore I say the quote is fake, and was never repeated or even acknowledged by Madison afterwards.

Indeed, you cannot find a quote where Patrick Henry himself declares secession at pleasure perfectly acceptable.

rustbucket: "Statements of what the Southern states decided were "necessary" for their secession are always interpreted by you as "at pleasure."
I doubt that any of the seceding states considered them that."

No, I'm saying factually that on November 5, 1860 Southern states had no legitimate or "necessary" reasons for secession, none!
Nor did they even threaten secession on November 5.
And yet suddenly, after November 6, some (Mississippi & Georgia) pretended that secession was now urgently "necessary" (while neither South Carolina nor Texas claimed it).
So what changed?
Answer: absolutely nothing except the constitutional election of a new President.

That is the very definition of "at pleasure".

rustbucket: "And that is exactly what Virginia did in 1861.
In 1861, Virginia did assemble in Convention, and they did recall their delegated powers.
In 1861, they did cite and use the Virginia reassume powers of governance statement written by Madison, Marshall, and three other Federalists and issued in the 1788 ratification document."

Sure, but you skipped right past the key point here: Virginians first voted against secession at pleasure.
By a huge margin Virginians understood in March 1861 that there was no valid reason for secession, no "injury or oppression" as specified in their ratification statement, and so they rejected secession.

Only after the Battle of Fort Sumter did the majority find enough "injury or oppression" to justify secession, and even then a large minority so objected they themselves seceded from Virginia!

No Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.

rustbucket: "Need I say it? There you go again."

Sure, repeating the facts and truth for a very slow-learning pupil... ;-)

rustbucket "You cite Thomas Jefferson. So can I. Here is Thomas Jefferson to John Breckinridge, 12 August 1803 [Source, bold emphasis added]:"

That is a most curious quote considering that fewer than three years later President Jefferson had his VP Aaron Burr arrested and tried for treason for the crime of attempting to lead Louisiana to secede from the Union.

rustbucket: "I shall be out of pocket for perhaps a week.
On the road again, per Willie Nelson.
Even in these Covid times. See you later."

I've been amazingly healthy (thank God!), never had the flu, not even a bad cold, but at my age Covid seems serious enough to take precautions, so I signed up for the shot when it becomes available.
Will let you know how it goes, FRiend.

Aaron Burr is a case of a non-resident of the Louisiana Territory plotting to take Louisiana away from the US and maybe even take Texas away from Mexico. This was a clear case of filibustering on Burr’s account, not a formal secession by the citizens of a state. Quite different. Here is an example of a filibusterer: William Walker.

A number of filibusterers tried to take Texas, or parts of Texas, from Mexico. They would gather small, independent, armies of adventurers and head into Texas. One of the first was the Philip Nolan in his expedition of 1800-1801 into Texas. From “Texas, A Historical Atlas” by A. Ray Stephens, copyright 2010:

”Some researchers suggest that Nolan, a protégé of General James Wilkinson (commander of U.S. military operations in the Southwest) was an associate in a plot involving Wilkinson and Aaron Burr, a New York politician and later vice president of the United States, to wrest control of the lower Mississippi region from the United States and join that area with Spanish territory, including Texas, for an empire of their own.”

Nolan and his party of 28 men, constructed a log fort in North Texas, and commenced capturing horses for later sale. 120 Spanish soldiers fought and overcame them in 1801 after Nolan was killed by a cannonball. The prisoners were taken into Mexico and years later released after one of them, determined by lot, was killed.

The Gutierrez-Magee Expedition of 1812-1813 was perhaps the largest effort of Texas filibusterers or freebooters, as they were then called. Here is a link about Augustus William McGee. I have a picture of a commemorative gravestone for him in the Presidio La Bahia in Goliad, Texas, where he died in 1813. The more formal name of the Presidio is “Presidio Nuestra Señora de Loreto de la Bahía”.

Magee aligned with a Mexican, Jose Bernardo Maximiliano Gutierrez de Lara. Initially their force numbered about 500 men. They and their filibustering group took over part of Texas, including Nacogdoches, Trinity, La Bahia (later called Goliad), and Bexar (later called San Antonio). At one time they numbered 1,400 men and had defeated Spanish troops near San Antonio. They were later overwhelmed in battle by a Spanish force of 1,800 men.

Secession was thought by many as legal before the Civil War. That is the period we have been arguing about. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White in 1867 declared secession was not legal. That Supreme Court case is the present interpretation on the legality of secession in the United States. Given that, I do not, and would not, advocate the secession of any current state.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.