Replies

>> To what entity does the Constitution grant the authority to force a sovereign state to remain in the Union? <<

Oh come on, that’s easy. Article 1, Section 8:

“The Congress shall have Power ... to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections...”

So, if some unilateral secessions are legal, how does Congress distinguish between legitimate secessions, and insurrections? Does the state legislature have to act? If so, is a simple majority enough? Two thirds? Or must the secession be ratified by a majority of the public? Can the governor just announce a secession? What if the legislature secedes, misreading the public mood, and is thrown out in the next election? Is the state SOL? What if the vast majority of part of the state votes for secession, but other parts don’t want to secede? Can the state be split? Is the standards for secession uniform, or do they vary from state to state? What if opposing factions within a state come to different conclusions as to whether secession took place? Can the federal government step in? Would its courts have any jurisdiction? Must it permit any insurrection that claims legitimacy, or can it lend its force to the faction which would remain the union?

I'm not sure whether everyone is properly getting St. George Tucker's drift. Tucker was an abolitionist, seeking a manner to choke off slavery, albeit without calamitous injury to the slave-holding states.

"Whilst America hath been the land of promise to Europeans and their descendants, it hath been the vale of death to millions of the wretched sons of Africa…Whilst we were offering up vows at the shrine of Liberty... whilst we swore irreconcilable hostility to her enemies... whilst we adjured the God of Hosts to witness our resolution to live free or die; we were imposing on our fellow men, who differ from us in complexion, a slavery ten thousand times more cruel than the utmost extremity of those grievances and oppressions, of which we complained".

Tucker isn't arguing that the sovereignty of the states can be grasped back from the federal government; he is arguing that the sovereignty is not diminished while they operate within the federal government, since their union was voluntary. Your quote is not relating to the issue of secession, but is an explanation of the tenth amendment. In fact, your citation is a misquote:

The twelfth article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States, declares, that 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 powers absolutely prohibited to the states by the constitution, are, shortly, contained in article 1. section 10. viz.
1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation.
2. Nor grant letters of marque and reprisal.
3. Nor coin money.
4. Nor emit bills of credit.
5. Nor make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.
6. Nor pass any bill of attainder.
7. Nor any expost facto law.
8. Nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts.
9. Nor grant any title of nobility. . . . Concerning all which, we shall make some few observations hereafter.
All other powers of government whatsoever, except these, and such as fall properly under the first or third heads above-mentioned, consistent with the fundamental laws, nature, and principle of a democratic state, are therefore reserved to the state governments.
From this view of the powers delegated to the federal government, it will clearly appear, that those exclusively granted to it have no relation to the domestic economy of the state. The right of property, with all it's train of incidents, except in the case of authors, and inventors, seems to have been left exclusively to the state regulations; and the rights of persons appear to be no further subject to the control of the federal government, than may be necessary to support the dignity and faith of the nation in it's federal or foreign engagements, and obligations; or it's existence and unity as the depositary and administrator of the political councils and measures of the united republics. . . . Crimes and misdemeanors, if they affect not the existence of the federal government; or those objects to which it's jurisdiction expressly extends, however heinous in a moral light, are not cognizable by the federal courts; unless committed within certain fixed and determinate territorial limits, to which the exclusive legislative power granted to congress, expressly extends. Their punishment, in all other cases, exclusively, belongs to the state jurisprudence.
The federal government then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to it's operation is voluntary: it's councils, it's engagements, it's authority are theirs, modified, and united. It's sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of it's functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
But until the time shall arrive when the occasion requires a resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several states (and far be that period removed when it shall happen) the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the states individually, is wholly suspended, or discontinued, in the cases before mentioned: nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the dissolution of the bonds of union. An event which no good citizen can wish, and which no good, or wise administration will ever hazard.

Funny, how your citation missed the part about the sovereignty being now united with the other states, united and modified.

"But isn't he still recognizing the right to secede? He says it cannot be removed except by the dissolution of the bonds of union?," you ask. "Does he not reserve the right of administration to be foolish? Or of a citizen to be bad?"

He does not write that "no correct citizen" could wish for dissolution; rather, he states that "no good citizen" could wish for it. To wish for dissolution, in other words, is to be inherently a bad citizen. Thus, we can imagine that the union is not to be broken by legal secession, but may be against the desire of the sovereignties by calamity, such as invasion, treachery, or unimaginable calamity.

Also, since we're bringing up opinions on the validity of secession, I'd say George Washington is more important than St. George Tucker. Here's what he had to say, in his farewell address:

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

That's right... Washington foresaw that some day the bonds of union might be broken, but when they were broken, they would be broken by the whole people, not a secessionist minority. Until that time, the Constitution was obligatory... and how can the Constitution of the United States of America be obligatory to someone not a part of the United States of America?