Replies

Good post. Someone knows their history. I'd like to know if you have any thoughts on this question you posed.

Well article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution says:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So we see from this that the U.S. Constitution takes precedence over any laws and state constitutions. Furthermore, local judges are bound to obey the U.S. Constitution.

Given this alone, it was patently illegal for at least 12 of the 13 southern states to secede. Tennessee was rather more clever about it than the others. She did not secede from the Union, but rather dissolved her own government, the theory being that since there was now no Tennessee government, any obligations to the U.S. were null and void. The problem with this line of thinking was that if this obligation was null and void, then all contracts and debts contracted by the state and the state's citizens were also null and void. But the state never reneged on previous obligations, so their contention, while clever, was shaky at best. Still, it was the best attempt of any of the southern states to get around the fact that secession was illegal. I should note here that it was also illegal for the 13 colonies to secede from Britain - and it took 2 wars before Britain recognized the legality of the U.S.' secession.

I've heard that several state constitutions reserved the right to secede (I don't know much about this part), but by ratifying the U.S. Constitution, they conceded that all local laws took second place to the Constitution. Thus they are presented with a conundrum. Even if they are allowed to secede, they must obey the Constitution, which means they cannot secede. Unlike southern apologists (Calhoun especially), Madison felt that secession was not something which could be done at will by a whim of the majority of each state.

You're right about the supremacy clause. Now, get out your copy of the US Constitution and find the clause which prohibits secession. That's all you have to do to prove your point. If it's there in the Constitution, then every state in the union is bound to it, irrevocably by virtue of the clause you cited. Saying that secession is patently illegal is easy. Citing the article, section and clause in the Constitution which prohibits secession isn't as easy.

I have been discussing this issue online since '95 and in other venues since '73. In all that time, nobody has ever cited the relevant clause in the Constitution which backs up the absurd claim that secession is prohibited by the Constitution. Maybe you'll be the first. Go ahead. I'm waiting.