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.

[stand watie]

you really should learn to read.

what i said was that i value the LEARNED OPINIONS of Professor Williams over your UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS.

Dr Williams is an expert in several academic disciplines (not just in economics);you seem to be lacking in that regard, but are really good at propaganda.

SADLY for you, people here are catching on to your act and that of the dumb-bunnies of the walt brigade.

free dixie,sw

[Ditto]

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 injured or oppressed? Please tell me how they were being injured or oppressed by the Federal Government.

All that clause means is that they were "declaring and making known" that the Constitution did not supersede their Natural Law right to Rebellion In the Face of Intolerable Oppression. No one ever suggested that the constitution, written by men, did supersede that right, granted by God.

[Arkinsaw]

Do you see the words injured or oppressed? Please tell me how they were being injured or oppressed by the Federal Government.

I suppose you are talking about the South in 1860? As I have stated a few times. I am talking about the generic right of secession in the face of oppression. The specific case of whether the South was actually opressed is a whole nother debate.

All that clause means is that they were "declaring and making known" that the Constitution did not supersede their Natural Law right to Rebellion In the Face of Intolerable Oppression.

It says that they can resume the powers delegated at any time. Since the delegation of the power was a peaceful process, where you get the idea that they are referring to the opposite process of a rebel war I don't know.

No one ever suggested that the constitution, written by men, did supersede that right, granted by God.

If the text said that they had a natural right to rebel then you would be right. Instead it said that they had a right to resume the powers delegated. If you rebelled, and lost, would your right to resume the powers delegated be exercised? Uh...no. Your explanation that they were making known a right, that (in your words) nobody ever suggested was superseded, is a stretch for this text.

[Ditto]

I am talking about the generic right of secession in the face of oppression.

There is a right to revolution given us by God. The Constitution gives no right to unilateral secession and it never did. It has other remedies for dissatisfaction as I mentioned in my earlier post.

Do you really think men like Washington, Madison, Hamilton and Jay spent those months in Philadelphia, spending their own money, risking their reputations and even their health (Philadelphia in the summer then was a hot bed of Yellow Fever --- men of means always left the city in the summer months) birthing that document, to see it destroyed at the first political controversy or left to the tender mercies of a skillful and self-serving demogog? Those men were not fools. They understood people and understood government.

[Ditto]

I am talking about the generic right of secession in the face of oppression.

BTW. That is a total oxymoron. Why on earth do you think that any government that would willingly violate your other rights to the point of intolerable oppression would respect any "generic right of secession" that you think exists? It’s not even logical.

[Arkinsaw]

There is a right to revolution given us by God. The Constitution gives no right to unilateral secession and it never did. It has other remedies for dissatisfaction as I mentioned in my earlier post.

Thats your opinion. The Constitution says NOTHING about secession being prohibited and when the Constitution says nothing about a power being prohibited then that power is reserved to the States or the people respectively. You simply stating the opposite in no way convinces me of your position.

Do you really think men like Washington, Madison, Hamilton and Jay spent those months in Philadelphia.........They understood people and understood government.

Do you really think that they just spent years fighting for their right of self-determination and explaining consent of the governed to the world just to deny it to their own descendants? I think not.

[Ditto]

Do you really think that they just spent years fighting for their right of self-determination and explaining consent of the governed to the world just to deny it to their own descendants? I think not.

And how does unilateral secession lead to anything but anarchy, which is what those men were trying to prevent with the Constitution. It provided all the framework for self-determination and to assure that the 'governed" had the final say.

[Arkinsaw]

BTW. That is a total oxymoron. Why on earth do you think that any government that would willingly violate your other rights to the point of intolerable oppression would respect any "generic right of secession" that you think exists? It’s not even logical.

Ah. So if a government does not recognize a right and withholds it from you, then it is not logical to think you have it, so it must not exist.

The Soviet Union in regard to Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania comes to mind. They were indeed oppressed, but the Soviets were finally forced to accept the right of peaceful self determination of these peoples.

Taiwan is another people that have a RIGHT to withdraw from the political entity that is China. They have a RIGHT to self-determination (or would you deny it?). Just because China refuses to recognize their right to self-determination, does not mean it doesn't exist. It just means its being illegitimately withheld.

[Non-Sequitur]

what i said was that i value the LEARNED OPINIONS of Professor Williams over your UNSUPPORTED OPINIONS.

On the contrary I at least provide verifiable evidence to support my position, unlike others on this forum who make up information and sources as they go along. And Dr. Williams' 'LEARNED OPINIONS' are still opinions and not necessarily fact, and his opinions tend to be as poorly supported as your's.

[Ditto]

So if a government does not recognize a right and withholds it from you, then it is not logical to think you have it, so it must not exist.

That is not what I said. You are twisting. I said that any government that would oppress either your legal and/or natural rights to the point of being intolerable would surely not respect a legal right to peaceful secession. In practical terms, you are only left with your natural right to revolution, which is why the very concept of a legal right to unilateral secession is an oxymoron.

Rights that cannot be claimed are not really rights. They are a fiction.

”If men were angles, there would be no need for government” -- J. Madison

[Arkinsaw]

And how does unilateral secession lead to anything but anarchy, which is what those men were trying to prevent with the Constitution. It provided all the framework for self-determination and to assure that the 'governed" had the final say.

Secession leads to anarchy? Well, if they said "we are seceding and have decided to have no government whatsoever" then it might lead to anarchy in the seceding State. But actually the seceding State is most likely to say that "we are seceding in order to be governed by a government that has our consent". Which of course, depending on the government they form might or might not be anarchy.

But in either case, it would not lead to anarchy in States that did not secede and remained where they were.

The anarchy argument is not a serious one.

[Ditto]

Well, if they said "we are seceding and have decided to have no government whatsoever" then it might lead to anarchy in the seceding State.

What if counties in that state disagreed. As legal political entities, do they have a legal right to secession from the state government. And then say townships in those counties disagreed with the counties. As legal political entities, do they have the right to seceed from their counties? And then...............

you get the point. How far does this unilateral right extend?

[Arkinsaw]

That is not what I said. You are twisting. I said that any government that would oppress either your legal and/or natural rights to the point of being intolerable would surely not respect a legal right to peaceful secession. In practical terms, you are only left with your natural right to revolution, which is why the very concept of a legal right to unilateral secession is an oxymoron.

If the government came into your house and took all of your guns and imprisoned you without telling you charges and quartered troops in your house then you really don't have those rights because you can't exercise them and the only right you would have at that point is the right to revolution?

I beg to differ. These are God-given rights. They are not dependent on whether or not the government grants them, respects them, or illegitimately withholds them or prevents their exercise.

Rights that cannot be claimed are not really rights. They are a fiction.

No, our rights are God-given. They cannot be destroyed by a government preventing their exercise. The Tibetans have the right of self-determination and the right to be governed by a government of their choosing. The Chinese merely illegitimately prevent the exercise of those universal rights.

[Arkinsaw]

What if counties in that state disagreed. As legal political entities, do they have a legal right to secession from the state government. And then say townships in those counties disagreed with the counties. As legal political entities, do they have the right to seceed from their counties? And then...............

you get the point. How far does this unilateral right extend?

I don't know? Did "The Valley" have a right to secede from the rest of Los Angeles because they felt they were being oppressed in the form of taxes and were forever a minority? I think they did have the right. They got to vote and thats how it should be.

Here in Arkansas we have a school district that wants OUT of the Pulaski County School District. Do they have the right to decide whether they run their own school district or whether they are forever bound to metropolitan Little Rock School District and all of its well known problems? I think they have that right.

Did neighborhoods in Miami have a right to secede from that city because they paid and paid and received few services in return? I think so.

How far does this go? Not sure, but I do know that people have the right to self-determination and to consent to the makeup and form of their government.

[stand watie]

how about comparing YOUR OPINIONS to the OPINIONS of Dr. Williams?

do you think readers on FR should believe you over him?

do you only discount his opinions, because you disagree with those opinions?

would you care to compare your academic credentials with his?

inquiring minds want to know.

free dixie,sw

[Non-Sequitur]

would you care to compare your academic credentials with his?

Hell, I'll compare my academic credentials to you, him, or anyone else. Bachelor of Science from the University of Illinois and an MBA from Northwestern. The fact that he has a doctorate and you have...whatever it is that you have doesn't mean that you are incapable of error. And as we have seen time and time again that is particularly true with you.

[stand watie]

frankly, i don't care what you think of me.

your posts are frequently the most obvious of damnyankee propaganda & people here are catching on to your act.

free dixie,sw