Posted on 02/04/2024 5:01:26 PM PST by McGruff
The Confederacy likely wouldhav3 broken up. Texas would have left.
The Federalist Papers (See # 45)
https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Complete-Federalist-Papers.pdf
James Madison, Secession, & State Sovereignty
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.war.civil.usa/p5V_C8Hm8yw
Do States Have a Right of Secession?
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/
James Madison on Secession
https://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/james-madison-on-secession/
No, the Articles of Confederation were not written in stone— precisely why it was failing and the Constitutional Convention was held, in secret to substitute a NEW governing document... which did not ever address Secession of the member States in the United States of America.
The history of this is not in question- many scholarly works written on the timeline, progression and actions of both documents. The Articles of Confederation (a bridge from the Revolutionary government of the 13 signatory Colonies to the Revolution/Independence)-was designed with the states remaining sovereign and independent, with Congress serving as the last resort on appeal of disputes. The only place the word perpetual appears is in the title- and is not committed to within the document. Which is given as one reason the Confederation was falling apart and 10 years after 1777- the Constitutional Convention convened.
There is no language in the Constitution about secession, no standards for when a State may secede, and no process for one to do so, though States are sovereign entities. Since they joined the union voluntarily, technically they may voluntarily leave— but there are many interlocking ways they would find this problematic.
The War Between the States- did not decide in any legal way (other than force of arms), the question of State Secession.
It merely demonstrated what it would take to do so- and forced to remain by extra-Constitutional measures and actions. The firebreathers who wanted war in the South, were largely thought to be foolish, because politics could have worked out a better solution.Reconstruction was nothing like what Lincoln had in conception, and on paper. The split in the Founding Fathers/Brothers came between the Washington/Adams support and the Jefferson and James Madison (until his dying day never intended for Secession to not be possible in extremis, far from it).
Slavery (and incidentally also indentured servitude which was still a thing in 1860) was mostly decided, and debatable how true the passing of the amendment was.
Know that you must mean Secession, not succession, and an oversight of two very different words.
” The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights effectively redistributed power to the people in several sovereign states and away from the central throne.
I would not call our founders fools for fighting to decentralize political power.”
Neither would I, FRiend. These were incredible intellects with rock solid belief in how to escape the monarchies of Europe— whom we all were later dragged into defending Europe’s surviving power groups (ex-Monarchists if one might say) from World Socialism, only to have World Socialism worm its way into nominally free states (imho, the NDSAP/Nazis realized their dreams with the winner’s help, leading to the EU and other clearly non-Republican ideas for the new sovereign states not conquered by the Soviets or freed from the Soviets until much later-just a thought). Wilson has a LOT to answer for- WWI to begin with and a useless League of Nations.
Madison denounced Secession during the Nulifocation crisis.
No mention whatsoever of secession in Madison’s Notes on Nullification, and he fully supported Thomas Jefferson’s 1798 Nullification concepts (which included the right of secession).
Here is from Madison’s notes on the very specific SC so called nullification trying to force other states to their singular will:
” Thus the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression. It cannot be supposed for a moment that Mr. Jefferson would not revolt at the doctrine of South Carolina, that a single state could constitutionally resist a law of the Union while remaining within it, and that with the accession of a small minority of the others, “
When the federal government decides for itself to have NO constitutional restraint, the people of the states have a natural right to defend themselves and stop it. That’s it— period. No matter what the fakirs of the fedgov come up with for the permanent “Statists” living off the Nation’s wealth.
I made zero arguments. I pointed out simple truths.
Legally the answer is of course they can. Its how we became our own country.
Morally the answer is it depends on the morality of the issue. In the case of our country we tried for decades to work and beg and plead with the English kings and their reps, to zero avail. Multiple issues including not allowing the multiple colonies that desired to, to end slavery.
And the other example, from a moral perspective, was secession in order to continue slavery, as well as other issues. But primarily they were not going to give slavery up no matter what, so what I see is sides with a morally sound position that want to secede, seem to succeed. Those with a bad moral reason as their foundation, don’t seem to succeed,
It is 1775 not 1861.
The right to independence does not have conditions. You can leave for whatever reason suits you, and you don't have to justify your reason for leaving to anyone.
If a right has conditions requiring the approval of others, it's not a right.
You mean 1776, Decl. of Independence. The Articles of Confederation were created in Continental Congress in 1777 came into actual force once ratified by all the then States in 1781. During the Revolution the Articles as a framework of government, quickly was shown to be ineffective (for raising funds, policy and..war). Meeting to correct or rewrite the Articles became the Constitutional Convention which met in 1787 to form the Constitution and our Constitutional Republic.
All of Madison’s life (which lasted until one year after the end of Jackson’s presidency) he supported the notion of Jefferson’s concepts of State Secession- with the exception of the Nullification Crisis of SC which was not Jeffersonian Secession. 3/5ths compromise on State census was conceived in the Hartford Convention (as early as 1804 New England Federalists threatened Secession against the central govt.- and right up to War of 1812, when Gov. Strong of Mass. was negotiating with the British for peace! Secession was again mentioned in 1814–1815 and the entire Hartford and subsequent events meand the death of the Federalist Party)
Specifically the 3/5 census compromise was to reduce representation in all the states— especially in those with more slaves to be discounted- this was a demand made by New England States which was approved. In 1859 and prior the rising sectional tariffs imposed on Southern states was cited as was the original Hartford Convention Secession motions of some 45 years before. Jefferson’s Secession concepts supported both (in thought) Secession, and Madison supported Jefferson’s ideas, including as President. Madison did not support the SC Nullification.
Different basis for Nullification isolates it- not as Secession but as manipulation and pressure on other States. Timelines for all of these events, including the breaking of the Second National Bank (the Bank War) by Jackson are of a thread that explains them.
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.