FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com
Posted on 03/04/2002 6:52:54 AM PST by shuckmaster
Recently, someone that I think is a student contacted me. He informed me that he was studying the topic of secession and asked me a question in regard to that subject. He wanted to know - can a state secede from the Union without the agreement of the other members, or "parties to the compact," as he expressed it. His terminology was interesting, as most folks don't refer to the Constitution as a compact anymore, and haven't since the conclusion of the military aspect of the War of Northern Aggression.
Most people in earlier days, especially in the South, did, indeed, view the Constitution as a compact, by which the sovereign states gathered and delegated [not surrendered] a portion of their power to a federal governing body. The federal government was, in a sense, supposed to be a delegate for the several states, given certain things to do for the states that were more difficult for them to handle individually.
I contacted the writer back, after consulting with a friend who is much more of a constitutional authority than I am, and informed him that, yes, states could individually secede from the compact. They had, after all, entered as individual states, one at a time, without prior agreement from other states, and so could have seceded the same way. And it is quite clear from some of the ratification language that the states felt it their right to secede if the new federal Union did not work according to plan. The delegates for the state of Virginia, in their ratification statement, expressed clearly the right of secession when they wrote: "We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected...do, in the name and 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, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
New York's ratification statement said much the same: "That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by the said Constitution, delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective State governments, to whom they have granted the same."
You can see, by the very nature of the wording of these ratification ordinances, that these people were signing on to a whole different concept of 'Union' than we operate under today. And, in spite of the election-time rhetoric of our current crop of politicians and other office-seeking liars, what exactly is the nature of today's 'Union?' I contend that our 'elected officials' have, since the time of the conclusion of the shooting phase of the War of Northern Aggression, embraced the classic Abraham Lincoln view of the Union. Lincoln's view, you see, was quite different than that of the founders of the country - about 180 degrees different, to be exact. To say the least, Lincoln's view of the Union was unusual. According to Webb Garrison, author of The Lincoln No One Knows, Lincoln continually: "...insisted that the Union existed before the Constitution was framed and adopted. 'The Union is much older than the Constitution,' he held...According to Lincoln's line of thought, the Constitution was secondary to the Union because it succeeded it in time. Though the Constitution should be respected and followed, 'a little bending of it' was justified if that was needed to preserve the Union." One can only view this as sort of an 1860s version of 'the end justifies the means.' In Lincoln's mind, this pre-Constitutional Union was eternal, so that no Southern state could secede - they only thought they could. It is interesting that prior to 1860, some of the New England states had threatened secession on at least three diferent occasions, but that seems to have been all right. It was only wrong if the South did it! [A slight double standard here?] Alexander H. Stephens, vice-president of the Confederate States of America noted of Lincoln that: "The Union, with him, in sentiment rose to the sublimity of a religious mysticism." Again, author Webb Garrison tells us of Lincoln, that: "By the end of 1864, the identification between himself and the Union became so complete that he was the Union."
Considering what we have undergone in this country since 1865 with the resultant apotheosis of Abraham Lincoln, we might be tempted to ask - in Lincoln's mind, was the Union 'god' and was he [Lincoln] the Union?
Where did Lincoln get his concept of the Union, the 'eternal' Union? Only God is eternal. All else will pass away in time. In fact, if America does not turn from her present direction, the least she can expect from the Almighty may be the reduction to the status of some third world country. And, if our 'Union' is eternal, then it must have existed long before the first Europeans came here, some of them long before Columbus. And, if for some reason, God is pleased to phase out the United States at some future point, then, according to Lincoln's light, the 'Union' will still exist.
In spite of the protestations of his apologists, it is thanks to Mr. Lincoln that our system of government started to move far, far away from the original intent of our founders. No one born after 1865 has ever lived under the original system of government our founders bequeathed to us. We have all existed under a socialistic, alien creation, birthed by the likes of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln, and carried to further excesses by FDR, Bill Clinton, and the present administration. The founders would not recognize the abomination that we exist under in our day. What the ignorant American populace calls 'freedom' they would have labeled as the rankest form of slavery. Perhaps we should pause to reflect upon that a bit.
The issue in a nutshell.
Doh!
Why don't you do us all a favor, and get some new interests?
Maybe you could start small, and tell us why the Spanish American War was a Constitutional travesty.
Over time, a couple of years say, you will actually be able to work your way into the late 20th Century.
I don't know that you'll ever catch up with the rest of us, bat at least you can make some progress.
Here's hoping you realize this senseless topic has been done to death, before it's TOO late, and they have to come and take you away.
The issue in a nutshell.
Chief Justice Jay in 1793 wrote that the powers were -transferred- to the federal government, not delegated.
Walt
On the contrary Mr. Ill; real progress is being made, particularly at FR, because the foundational myth of the present TYRANNY is being exposed. Are you another of those who profess, like "Honest Abe", that the "Union formed the States"?
There is a big difference between transferred and delegated. Delegated powers might be withdrawn. Transferred powers may not.
Whether you pseudo-confeds like it or not, the early Congress and Supreme Court were able to build an edifice that could withstand the shocks of a gigantic rebellion against the lawful authority.
Among these building blocks were the Judciary Act of 1789, which gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction in "civil controversies" arising between the states and the Militia Act of 1795, which gave the president the clear power to ensure that United States courts operate in all the states.
Whatever mitigation you find in the words of Jefferson, or the state ratification documents or anywhere else, the people, actng through their agent, the federal government built a nation that a dissatisfied minority could not pull down.
Walt
Oh come on Illbay, you've been here as long as you have and you believe that? We excel at rehashing the same arguments.
Consider: Harry Potter, Ritalin, War on Drugs, Calvin/Wesley
I could go on, but then someone would start a thread arguing about what we argue endlessly about...
Some of us are still very interested in this debate.
Shameless plug: Brother vs. Brother
For very interesting reading, get a copy of 'Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Ft. Sumter, to Lithuania, to Quebec' by Buchanan (can find it at www.abebooks.com).
I also have never heard of Chief Justic Jays ruling in 1793 and find that posters assertion 'very suspicious'.
Also, read 'A View of the Constitution of the USA' by Rawle, 1828, (available as a reprint at www.crownrights.com). Rawle was from Pennsylvania and wrote all of Pennyslvania's statutes, and was regarded as THE Constitutional authority in his day. He says that secession was legal in this book.
Secession was the ultimate, and last ditch, form of 'checks and balances'. Also, if secession was illegal, then why did several northeastern states (Mass. amoung them), hold a convention in Hartford in 1814 to start secession proceedings in protest of the War of 1812 and Madison's policies? Huh? What happened to Jay's ruling then?
If a state wasn't sovereign, what was the status of North Carolina and Rhode Island before the ratified the Constitution? (see the dates on your state quarters)
What if Germany, or any other European country now a member of the European Union, decided to leave? Would the other European countries invade it and force it to submit?
The slavery question really muddied the water on the separate secession issue.
We have intricate laws for couple's divorcing (dissolving a Union for breach of contract), yet we have NO laws and guidelines for how/when a state can secede. I don't think that the Union between a state and a federal government is more sacred than the Union of a man and woman in marriage, do you?
If a man beats his wife, she can get a divorce and dissolve her 'union' with him. Cannot a state be afforded the same right?
Because the Articles were a failure and everyone knew it.
Walt
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.