Was Secession Treason?

Daveblack ^ | June 30, 2003 | DaveBlack

[stainlessbanner]

America was founded on a revolution against England, yet many Americans now believe the myth that secession was treasonable. The Declaration of Independence was, in fact, a declaration of secession. Its final paragraph declares inarguably the ultimate sovereignty of each state: [T]hat these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved of all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. Following the Declaration of Independence, each colony established by law the legitimacy of its own sovereignty as a state. Each one drew up, voted upon, and then ratified its own state constitution, which declared and defined its sovereignty as a state. Realizing that they could not survive upon the world stage as thirteen individual sovereign nations, the states then joined together formally into a confederation of states, but only for the purposes of negotiating treaties, waging war, and regulating foreign commerce. For those specific purposes the thirteen states adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781, thus creating the United States of America. The Articles of Confederation spelled out clearly where the real power lay. Article II said, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” The Article also prohibited the secession of any member state (“the union shall be perpetual,” Article XIII) unless all of the states agreed to dissolve the Articles. Six years later, the Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia, supposedly to overhaul the Articles. The delegates in Philadelphia decided to scrap the Articles and to propose to the states a different charter—the United States Constitution. Its purpose was to retain the sovereignty of the states but to delegate to the United States government a few more powers than the Articles had granted it. One major difference between the two charters was that the Constitution made no mention of “perpetual union,” and it did not contain any prohibition against the secession of states from the union. The point was raised in the convention: Should there be a “perpetual union” clause in the Constitution? The delegates voted it down, and the states were left free to secede under the Constitution, which remains the U. S. government charter today. After the election of Thomas Jefferson, the Federalist Party in New England was so upset that for more than ten years they plotted to secede. The party actually held a secession convention in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814. Although they ultimately decided not to leave the Union, nobody really questioned the fundamental right of secession. In fact, the leader of the whole movement, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering, said that secession was the principle of the American Revolution. Even John Quincy Adams, who was a staunch unionist, said in an 1839 speech about secession that in “dissolving that which can no longer bind, we would have to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.” Likewise, Alexander Hamilton said, “to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised.” These men, and many others, understood that there was a right of secession, and that the federal government would have no right to force anybody to remain in the Union. Some people see the Confederates as traitors to their nation because many Confederate leaders swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when joining the United States Army. However, at that time people were citizens of individual states that were members of the United States, so that when a state seceded, the citizens of that state were no longer affiliated with the national government. Remember, the Constitution did not create an all-powerful national democracy, but rather a confederation of sovereign states. The existence of the Electoral College, the Bill of Rights, and the United States Senate clearly shows this, and although it is frequently ignored, the 10th Amendment specifically states that the rights not given to the federal government are the rights of the states and of the people. But if states do not have the right to secede, they have no rights at all. Lincoln’s war destroyed the government of our founding fathers by the “might makes right” method, a method the Republicans used to quash Confederates and loyal Democrats alike. After the war, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was arrested and placed in prison prior to a trial. The trial was never held, because the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Salmon Portland Chase, informed President Andrew Johnson that if Davis were placed on trial for treason the United States would lose the case because nothing in the Constitution forbids secession. That is why no trial of Jefferson Davis was held, despite the fact that he wanted one.  So was secession treason? The answer is clearly No.

[Colt .45]

Your assertions about the Southern secession being treasonous are absurd to the point of being ludicrous. IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING about the Founding Fathers' intent when the Constitution was written, you would understand that this is a government of the People, the States retained their sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution, and it (the Constitution) clearly limited the power of the Federal Government. So if the SUPREME AUTHORITY rests with the People, then as such the PEOPLE have the power to make or un-make any Constitution. James Madison recognized this indisputable fact!

In the days of the American War for Independence you would have been called a Tory because of your beliefs of who holds power. Thomas Jefferson said "This government is ruled by the People, no longer will the priviledged few ride booted and spurred over the backs of the many" (or something similar to this statement).

Your assertion that discretionary power rests in the hands of the Government is in direct contravention to the cornerstone of American beliefs (i.e. The DOI) ... you know ... 'that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just (meaning limited)powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.'

Because Lincoln abused his authority to call up the Federal Army to forcibly keep the South in the Union, he invalidated the DOI as our cornerstone of uniquely American beliefs.

But since our laws are founded on English law, and Ancient Roman and Greek law ... if you would bother to research it, you would find out that the South had every right to secede (i.e. NATURAL LAW) and under articles 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights, which was a prohibition on the Federal Government when written. Yes, the North won and forcibly repatriated the Southern States ... but it doesn't make what that government did right, or just, it only makes the supposed limited Federal Government the anti-thesis of what the Founders' intended. And don't try to sell me the horse crap about what the Supreme Court ruled in 1869 either. The bottom line is that in 1865 the Supreme Court became the tool of governmental policy rather than the arbiters of "equal protection under law". The Supreme Court Justices are human, and as such they have the human frailties of fear, and they wouldn't dare go against a government who appointed them, and had just ground the Southern people under their booted heel.

And your assertion about "We don't like this game, so we're taking our ball and going home" treason is crap, because the Founders intended for the People, thereby the States, to have the right of self-determination. And if the government, or the Northern merchants using the Federal Government as a tool of oppression against Southern economic interests, was indeed being abusive of that very right of self-determination ... then indeed the South was legitimate in its bid to withdraw from the Union, and to establish its own form of Government which would secure its economic prosperity ( i.e. Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness).

I would strongly suggest that you read 'A Constitutional History of Secession' by John Remington Graham (a Minnesota Lawyer) written in 2002.

[SCDogPapa]

But since charges were never brought one could also argue that treason did not take place.

Absolutely!! There were no charges brought, because there were no grounds. They held Jeff Davis for two years and WOULD NOT bring him to trial. Why?? Mr. Davis wanted to be tried, but they would not. Again why??? NO GROUNDS!

[SCDogPapa]

Very good post Sir. Well said!

[azhenfud]

"I know Fourth Grade was a couple of years ago, but this may help..."

Oh. Our bad.

[hobbes1]

IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING about the Founding Fathers' intent when the Constitution was written, you would understand that this is a government of the People

Yes. Of the People...All the people, in the free exercise of Democracy (Not just the half that lost. You do not shatter a country over the poor electoral results, te secessionists are like Sore Losermen, with their own armies FCOL), and even a cursory glance at the treasonous secessionist documents tells you, flat out, that it was simply "we dont like this so were taking our ball and going home..."

Like the DOI says, governments should not be changed ad hoc for transient causes....

There was no Long train of injuries and usurpations....the founding fathers spent more time cajoling, begging and pleading with england, than the south did whining about lincolns election.And Lincoln, two months into that term would hardly have had the opportunity to enjoin the same manner of desptism as King George had.

So, I would think that absent the Lincoln=King George axiom, the Founding Fathers would have seen it Abes way.

As history does.....

[hobbes1]

Pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,

The Whole argument falls, because you cannot make the case that that is true, therefore the conditions existant when the DOI was brought forth are NON EXISTENT in this case.

[aristeides]

Actually, Chase and the Supreme Court he led did hold (in Texas v. White, I believe) that the Constitution forbids secession. I find the arguments used unconvincing, but that's what they held. However, it's a different matter whether Jefferson Davis and others could have been convicted of the crime of treason (which would have required their knowledge that they were committing treason), and I think Chase and others judged that there was no reasonable prospect of a jury finding them guilty.

[Centurion2000]

bump

[Centurion2000]

bump for later review

[stainlessbanner]

Slavery and secession are not tied together. There are examples of slavery ending without secession; there are examples of secession without slavery. Unfortunately, our history books tie the two together in a nice story.

Examples of Secession

• 1798-99 Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. Said states could nullify national law if they violated individual state rights!
• 1804, Massachusetts plotted to secede and tried to get New York to withdraw from the union and establish a "Northern Confederacy".
• 1807 Embargo Act New Jersey was going to secede due prohibition of foreign trade
• In 1814, delegates from several New England states threatened to secede over President James Madison's war policies against England.
• In 1844, the Massachusetts Legislature threatened secession when Congress started debating whether to admit Texas into the Union.

Here are some other talking points

1. Abraham Lincoln endorsed secession: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." (1848)
   
2. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that governments are institutions that can be defined as “deriving their power from the consent of the governed.”
   
3. Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence also stated: Whenever "any Form of Government becomes destructive" of the inalienable rights granted by the Creator, "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government."
   
4. Alexander Stephens in his "A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States," submitted, the central government, the common agent of the people of the states, is legitimate only so long as it exercises its delegated powers within the bounds established by the people through the Constitution.

[azhenfud]

"There was no Long train of injuries and usurpations....the founding fathers spent more time cajoling, begging and pleading with england, than the south did whining about lincolns election.And Lincoln, two months into that term would hardly have had the opportunity to enjoin the same manner of desptism as King George had."

Man, you really are short on the Southern cause, aren't you.

The nation almost saw war in 1828 when the Tariff of Abominations was enacted. Then President Jackson made a bold statement that he'd have to back up with force had those tariffs not been drastically cut. It would only postpone the inevetable. It was the passing of the Morrill Tariffs shorlty after Lincoln's inauguration which sharply increased those duties, and his intent to enforce that tariff that sparked the War of Northern Agression. Whether out of fear on the North's part that an industrialized South, with slave labor would harm the Northern industries, or providing a monitary source to fund Northern economic expansion, or as punitive to slave-holding states as a means to end slavery, or maybe a sum of all combined is moot because the increased tariffs only after Lincoln took office sparked the conflict.

Time after time in the previous decades to 1860, Southern state represenatives, along with some of the Northern states made pleas in Congress to establish a more fair and equally just duty assessment - without any progress. So, there were from the second decade to the sixth of "cajoling, begging and pleading" with the government to equally tax. That's about the same time span of oppression from England the assembled colonies suffered. That's upon the same cause the American Patriots of the 18th century made their stand.

Again, to define "treason" best is dependant upon which side of liberty one stands.

[hobbes1]

Yes, and secession was designed to keep "Liberty" from
one specific race, rather than have to pay them a wage...

[stainlessbanner]

secession was designed to keep "Liberty" from one specific race

Read post 90.

[azhenfud]

Keeping Liberty from a race of people? By the same token, Lincoln nor his Northern armies did any favors to the Native American's cause for "Liberty", unless it was to "liberate" them from their lands - of course without fair compensation. Lincoln had his share into that part of history, too. They only used the slave issue as justification for their Northern Aggression and likewise, were neither a shining example of equality.

[hobbes1]

I am well aware of the dissonance between the rest of the reason for the treason, besides slaver, ut that Liberty is all a matter as stated, is curiosly one sided...

[Ditto]

"To argue otherwise would be to say that it was illegitimate for the colonies to seceed from Great Britian.",

The colonies did not "seceed" from GB. They rebelled against it. By any legal definition they were guilty of treason against the Crown, and they knew and accepted that fact. Secession is a legal question. Rebellion is always illegal even when justified or "legitimate". The south in 1860 made no attempt to justify rebellion on moral grounds as the colonies did in 1776. They made no attempt to have a legitimate secession process by gaining the agreement of the other parties to the constitution on the question of disolving the union. They simply rebelled thinking they could get away with it. They guessed wrong.

[SCDogPapa]

Keeping Liberty from a race of people? By the same token, Lincoln nor his Northern armies did any favors to the Native American's cause for "Liberty", unless it was to "liberate" them from their lands - of course without fair compensation.

Well said and to the point! This country never has shown the Native Americans any Liberty!

[Ditto]

"There were many in the South who advocated freeing the slaves before seceding."

Many? How many is "many'? I only recall one who said that after the war, not in 1860. Advocating abolition could get you killed in many areas of the south back then.

[hobbes1]

Beautifully Put.

[Protagoras]

History aside for a moment, if states could leave peaceably whenever the federal government over stepped it's legitimate powers we wouldn't be in the current mess. Freedom would have been better served in the long term and the people would leave any state which usurped their rights and go to another state where they were not. Instead we have universal tyranny with no where to flee to.

Fight or flight? Which do you think is better? And when do you think the next war will begin?