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.

[Arkinsaw]

Both said that states are not bound to enforce acts of Congress which violate the Consititution, but where do either say that there is a right to unilateral secession

They said that each party has an equal right to judge for itself, was well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. I pointed this out to illustrate for the poster that Mr. Madison was not always consistent in his views. Their statement that States have an equal right amongst them to determine measure of redress for infractions by the Federal government is fairly consistent with the other quotes on this thread, by Mr. Madison at the Convention in opposition to use of force against a State, and Mr. Webster's comments in regard to acession/secession.

exactly what features of the "compact" were being violated by the Federal government in 1860?

I have stated on the thread several times that I am here to debate about secession as a generic political concept and am not here to defend the use of it in 1860. Thats a different thread. The analogy I used was, I may use an electrical cord to strangle someone, but that does not automatically make all uses of electrical cords evil.

[Arkinsaw]

I suppose, since under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union these states were bound together permanently as a country, they ratified the Constitution so they could get out! ;^)

The point is, that if four of them chose to leave, the Constitution would have taken effect for the other 9 without them. Wouldn't it have?

[capitan_refugio]

Are you referring to Walter Williams, the economist, at George Mason University?

[Ditto]

I have stated on the thread several times that I am here to debate about secession as a generic political concept and am not here to defend the use of it in 1860. Thats a different thread. The analogy I used was, I may use an electrical cord to strangle someone, but that does not automatically make all uses of electrical cords evil.

Then you agree with Madison when he said that there is a Right to Revolution from "intolerable oppression" but no such right in the absence of such. As to another thread, the title of this one is Was Secession Treason? specifically referring to the events of 1860. The Constitution provides remedies for "dissatisfaction" through the political process, through the courts, through amendment, or in the extreme, through mutually agreed dissolution of the Union. But it does not provide for unilateral secession in the absence of oppression, which in Madison's words amounts to revolution with no moral justification.

[Ditto]

The point is, that if four of them chose to leave, the Constitution would have taken effect for the other 9 without them. Wouldn't it have?

The point Madison was making in 1787 was that states should not be compelled to accept the Constitution. If 4 had decided to not accept, so be it, the Union would go on without them. But once they accepted, they were bound to it and could not withdraw without the agreement of the others just as they could not be expelled by the others without their consent.

[capitan_refugio]

The point I was making is, you don't ratify a Constitution for a "more perfect union," if you are thinking about secession - a "right" you didn't have under the previous agreement. If you wanted out, all you needed to do was ... nothing! ... voila! You are a free, independent, and sovereign nation.

But they all signed on. A couple were wary enough to be tardy in ratifying. Three ratified with "reservations" (which, by the way, were "editorial" comments with no foundation in law). And when they signed on they did so with the knowledge that they were all giving up a little for the good of the whole. Keep in mind, the state legislatures did not ratify; that occurred in ratification conventions of the people.

The Constitution did not create a new country. The laws and institutions of the country continued on. The Constitution was a change in the operatiing agreement between the states and changed the form of government - for the better in my opinion.

[Arkinsaw]

The point I was making is, you don't ratify a Constitution for a "more perfect union," if you are thinking about secession - a "right" you didn't have under the previous agreement.

Of course nobody wanted to think about secession and nobody was contemplating actually seceding at the point of ratification. But the comments made in regard to force did take place and the founders chose not to transfer the word 'perpetual' to the new document for obvious reasons.

A couple were wary enough to be tardy in ratifying. Three ratified with "reservations" (which, by the way, were "editorial" comments with no foundation in law)

Well, we look at it a little differently. To me, the most important aspect of the whole deal is what the States ratified in the name of their people and their understanding of it. To me, thats more important than what the founders said they were writing. The Federalist Papers, in my view, are more important than what the founders say elsewhere because those comments were available to the public and used to inform them of what they were ratifying. What the people ratified and what they understood they were ratifying is the only thing that matters. Anything added beyond that doesn't have the imprimatur of the people.

And when they signed on they did so with the knowledge that they were all giving up a little for the good of the whole.

Absolutely. They all read the benefits to be gained from a continental union in the Federalist Papers and I agree with all of those benefits outlined.

Keep in mind, the state legislatures did not ratify; that occurred in ratification conventions of the people.

Absolutely, and more reason to give what they said in the ratification documents weight.

The Constitution did not create a new country. The laws and institutions of the country continued on. The Constitution was a change in the operatiing agreement between the states and changed the form of government - for the better in my opinion.

I debate this somewhat due to the fact that the States ratified individually and had the opportunity to decline. They people didn't vote in mass for the whole nation, and the States did not all get together and ratify by majority for the whole either. They all ratified as individual political entities.

My point here is not to convince you that you position is wrong. Because I can't and never will be able to. This has been debated by the Calhouns and Clays and Websters and the inability to reach a definite conclusion either way led to a few hundred thousand deaths. This question is just not solvable in the debating arena.

My point is that there are reasonable arguments for a reasonable person to advocate either position reasonably. It has to do with secession as a valid reserved power for use in the face of real tyranny whether you believe that was the case in 1860 or not (which I am sure you can argue capably on its own).

But good debate nonetheless.

[Arkinsaw]

The point Madison was making in 1787 was that states should not be compelled to accept the Constitution. If 4 had decided to not accept, so be it, the Union would go on without them. But once they accepted, they were bound to it and could not withdraw without the agreement of the others just as they could not be expelled by the others without their consent.

Thats your opinion. But that is not stated explicitly and in fact some States specifically said otherwise in their ratification documents.

[Arkinsaw]

Then you agree with Madison when he said that there is a Right to Revolution from "intolerable oppression" but no such right in the absence of such.

Well, I have to wonder who determines what is intolerable oppression and who determines what is not. The British people were taxed more by their Parliament than we were. They certainly did not consider what we saw as "intolerable oppression" to be either intolerable or oppressive. They recognized no right for us to revolt.

Similarly, If 35 States ratified an amendment to ban the individual right to bear arms they obviously would not consider that oppression since they voted for it. But I would and perhaps the other 15 States would. Who gets to decide what is intolerable oppression? The purported opressor? or the alleged oppressed?

As to another thread, the title of this one is Was Secession Treason? specifically referring to the events of 1860.

I didn't start the thread. But I did state why I was posting on it.

The Constitution provides remedies for "dissatisfaction" through the political process, through the courts, through amendment, or in the extreme, through mutually agreed dissolution of the Union. But it does not provide for unilateral secession in the absence of oppression, which in Madison's words amounts to revolution with no moral justification.

Well, if the majority in Congress voted to ban personal firearms (possible), and the Supreme Court agreed that there was no such right in the Constitution (possible), and the majority of States that voted for it refused to allow dissolution of the Union (probable) it would still be opression and the illegitimate denial of a God-given right to self defense.

Madison also said that States have the equal power to judge for themselves infractions of the Constitution and decide for themselves the action necessary to deal with it. What action would a State take to interpose itself between the tyrannous action mentioned above and that States people? I can only see one.

Any government can be a bad master. You seem to imply that since it is this particular Union that it is incapable of a tyranny of the majority and incapable of ever denying God-given rights. I find that naive. I don't think the founders were that naive.

[Arkinsaw]

There is of course a valid argument that secession is no longer Constitutional TODAY that you guys have not reached yet.

That is the 14th Amendment. No State can deny US citizenship to its residents. One can see where a State would be able to secede but it would find itself full of US citizens with nobody left to represent. Those citizens that felt like it could renounce US citizenship individually, but would then be left with a bunch of foreign alien property owners within it and a very questionable right to do anything with them.

A new sticky wicket for any modern day secessionists that the South did not have in 1860. An interesting mental scenario to contemplate in any event.

[stand watie]

you.

FYI, i've been out of town & away from my PC, thus i didn't see your post until the time i responded with your WELL-DESERVED award.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

frankly, i'd take Dr. Walter Williams opinion, as an academic of nation-wide stature, over your un-supported opinions every time.

others here , otoh, may draw their own conclusions as to whether you or he is the most knowledgeable on that subject.

free the south,sw

[stand watie]

YEP.

i heard him make that statement at a faculty conference in DC.

free dixie,sw

[Ditto]

But that is not stated explicitly and in fact some States specifically said otherwise in their ratification documents.

Neo-Confederate Myth.

What they really said was that they conditionally ratified the Constitution based on the general agreement that a Bill of Rights would be amended to the constitution at the earliest possible date. A Bill of Rights of 12 amendments was passed by the first congress and 10 of those amendments were ratified by the states in 1790. The conditional ratification of New York and Virginia were indeed met making their ratification final and binding.

[stand watie]

well, well.

you FINALLY posted something other than south-HATING, revisionist, FICTION. congrads.

free dixie,sw

[Ditto]

What's up with you? You taking nice pills or something?

Where's your typical insult?

And BTW. For the umpteenth time, i don't give a rats ass about the south one way or another. I don't love it. I don't hate it, and mostly I don't even think about it. It's just another place to me. But if it gives you some comfort to feel oppressed and hated, be my guest.

[stand watie]

you are one of the well-known posters of REVISIONIST fiction about the southland.

it was nice however to see you post something true.

free dixie,sw

[Non-Sequitur]

frankly, i'd take Dr. Walter Williams opinion, as an academic of nation-wide stature, over your un-supported opinions every time.

So you would take Dr. Williams' opinion over fact? Now why doesn't that surprise me?

[Arkinsaw]

DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:

Do you see the words DECLARE AND MAKE KNOWN? Those words are a declaratory statement and not a provisional representation asking for something. You can say "Neo-Confederate Myth" all that you want but anyone who can read and has an open enough mind to apply common sense interpretation to the text can see otherwise.

Do declare and make known....That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

This also is a straightforward declaratory statement if you go look at the text.

Do declare and make known...That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.

Again, "Do Declare and Make Known". Very clear. These three northern States are DECLARING and MAKING KNOWN. Quite clear.

[Arkinsaw]

2 northern, and 1 southern I should say.