Back in the early days of my blog, I wrote up a couple of posts on this topic:
http://theconstitutionalalamo.com/2009/05/08/secession/
http://theconstitutionalalamo.com/2009/05/07/in-defence-of-the-secessionist-traitors/
The discussion threads surrounding them were very interesting, as were the legal grounds used by each side. In the end, brute force seemed to be the only thing that “ensures” a state cannot secede. But I think there’s a reason that in no place in the Constitution is there reference to secession as legal or illegal. Hence, the reason Scalia had to refer to the Pledge. There just is no constitutional prohibition against secession.
The overwhelming majority of American military strength is in the southern and western states and in the most conservative parts of those and other states.
Nearly all Air Force personnel have had their original training in Texas, Alabama or Colorado Springs.
Army — their enlisted training is Fort Benning, Georgia, South Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma, or Kentucky — all conservative states. Their officer training is in Georgia or West Point — both very conservative.
Nearly all Marines go through South Carolina or San Diego. Marine officers go through Quantico in Virginia or Annapolis in Maryland. I could question the conservative roots of Naval enlisteds and officers — but Marines are the most conservative of all in spite of the states their training facilities are in.
Navy personnel go through boot camp in Great Lakes, Michigan or OCS in Maryland or Academy in Maryland but the Navy may be the most conservative behind the Marines. Yet some of their major ports are in liberal Democrat states — Washington, Connecticut, and the liberal coast of California.
I dunno about the Navy. What do you all think — could they be trusted?
It settled that to attempt it would prove expensive in treasure and blood.
Secession is to be settled by either war or natural disintegration of the Republic...neither very pretty.
I’d say it remains open by it’s nature.
Imho, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution are the founding documents of this great nation. So, with out further adieu...
In a nation of laws, when someone asks, “Do states have a right to secede from the Union?”, a proper answer would have one of two forms:
•“Yes, because x.”
X=the entire first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. X=the Ninth and Tenth amendments (Causes for separation). And finally, X=Article IV, Section 4, first paragraph (Does anyone think we now have a Republican form of government?).
Doesn't the great state of Texas have a clause in their constitution regarding secession?
5.56mm
“Yes, because x.”
“No, because x.”
Here, x would be an explanation of the laws that supported the Yes or No answer.
With the secession issue, though, we are given the following as a complete and sufficient answer:
“No, because if any state tries to secede, the central government will use force of arms to keep it from succeeding.”
There is no appeal to law in this answer – just brute force.
______________
The correct answer is “No, because x says so.”
Seriously, though, the article gets it all wrong.
You can build a case that secession is constitutional or an argument that secession is unconstitutional and argue about it for eternity. That's because the constitution doesn't literally and precisely answer the question. You look at what's there and infer some answer that isn't there in black and white.
To resolve the question somebody says, "The Civil War decided that" or "See Texas vs. White." They aren't saying that there is no other answer than force or the will of the Supreme Court at a particular time. They're saying that all the arguments don't amount to a resolution that all parties would agree to.
If the Confederates had gotten their way -- if the federal government didn't object to secession on demand, or if the slaveowning South had won the war -- we'd point to their victory as deciding the question, but it wouldn't be an answer as to what the Constitution "said" or "meant" in 1860.