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]

"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..."

Again you do not know history! This proves it. There was over 60 years of pulling apart between the North and the South prior to the War of Northern Aggression. Start with Congress shifting a disproportionate burden of the taxes from the American War for Independence onto the Southern shoulders in 1793. Why? Because the Northern States couldn't afford to pay their fair share ... they were too poor economically. By the way ... THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED AS A REPUBLIC ... meaning that representatives of the People go to Congress to voice their constituents concerns. Those representatives are servants of the People. We were NOT founded as a Democracy because the Founders recognized that in Democracy you have what is called the "tyranny of the majority" ... hence they gave us the Electoral College, Bill of Rights and so forth.

Go back and study your history, come back and talk when you get better educated. Read the book I told you about (but keep an open mind if you decide to) ... you just might learn the other side of the story.

[capitan_refugio]

Okay, then consider this from Texas v White (1869):

The Chief Justice writes ... "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

In this case the Court ruled that unilateral secession was impermissible and unconstitutional. It is settled case law.

[Arkinsaw]

In this case the Court ruled that unilateral secession was impermissible and unconstitutional. It is settled case law.

The fundamental argument on secession is whether a State retains the power and sovereignty to withdraw from a government. If it does not, your ex post facto court ruling is not necessary. If it does, your ex post facto court ruling is worthless.

Your argument implies that the court had jurisdiction and its ruling means something because the seceding States were still under its jurisdiction. Whereas my argument would imply that the court had no jurisdiction over seceded States and its ruling would mean nothing since the States were no longer under the Constitution.

I'm not trying to be an ass, really. Its just that this argument assumes from the beginning that a court could decide this which basically has to assume that secession was illegal even for the court to have jurisdiction.

This is not an assumption many of us are willing to accept on its face.

The court in Brussels can indict George Bush or whoever it wants for war crimes and it can say that it has jurisdiction over the entire universe if it so desires. We consider its rulings to be a farce under color of law. The court in Brussels would like us to ASSUME it has jurisdiction and ACCEPT its ruling just because it says it has the power to do so. The court in Texas v. White says it has the power to rule. But its power to rule over Texas post secession is exactly what we are arguing about in the first place!

The Constitution is silent on secession. Every attempted logical argument either for or against comes up against this problem. Those who wish to justify the northern position say that it is illegal out of thin air (like the Texas v. White court). Those who wish to justify the southern position say it is legal out of thin air. Only the Constitution can decide regardless of all our arguments and unfortunately it is silent.

My personal opinion is that if the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit something then it is reserved to the States or the people respectively. But that is just my opinion and opinions are all we have.

I can respect the arguments on your side, I just don't think they outweigh the arguments on the other side. IMO it is not up to a government whose consent to govern is being withdrawn to decide if the withdrawal of consent is okay or not. That view is consistent with my view on China not being able to decide if self-determination for Taiwan and Tibet are legal and consistent with my view that the legality of self determination of Latvia or Estonia could be decided by Russians.

[azhenfud]

"My personal opinion is that if the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit something then it is reserved to the States or the people respectively. But that is just my opinion and opinions are all we have."

From the Articles of Confederation:

"II. 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.

It's not your opinion nor mine, but was to be the guaranteed right of each sovereign state of the Confederation. The SCOTUS opinion against secession was made as such because their opinions were bought by the FedGov. They never really gave proof of its unconstitutionality, they just ruled that it was through conjecture. Now we have a court that interprets law as it wishes without constraints supposedly afforded per Paragraph II of the AoC.

[azhenfud]

The SCOTUS had the nerve to quote from the AoC, a document of which they had no intention of observing its instruction. They had no right to rule on a matter that was not expressly given them by the document to which they refer. That's a laugh and blatant evidence of the kangaroo crew being on the take of the FedGov. What's the saying, "Possession is nine points of the law"? The FedGov had its judges on the bench, don't you see...

[Ditto]

The colonies would have been happy to have never fired the first shot but G.B. decided that the colonies were "rebelling".

The Shot Heard Around the World. And who fired the first shot at Fort Sumter? In my neighborhood, if you start a fight, you better damn well be able to finish it.

Spin all you want (typical whining Democrat) the South Slaveocrats caused the problem, initiated the war, and got exactly what they deserved.

And all because Lincoln said he opposed them taking their "property" to any other states. Poor babies.

Tell us Mr. Blood of Tyrants, who were the "Tyrants in that situation?

[Arkinsaw]

They never really gave proof of its unconstitutionality, they just ruled that it was through conjecture.

As you can see from my post, I agree with you. Its my opinion that making withdrawal from the Union illegal is against everything the country was founded on. But the question still comes down to what the Constitution says about secession (not the meaningless Articles of Confederation). In fact, the Articles of Confederation said that the Union was permanent. Something the founders did not put into the Constitution since they were already breaking up the "permanent" union of the Articles to form a new Union with a minimum of 9 states peeled off from the old "permanent" union potentially leaving 4 to go their own way. Oops.

I have to rely on the founders belief in self-determination, the concept of reserved powers, that the States ratified individually and some retained the right in their ratifications to undelegate the powers they granted, etc. All that influences my opinion and yours, but its still opinion and others differ. The Constitution is silent. It could not be solved without a few hundred thousand dead and we are certainly not going to come up with an argument that clears it all up tonight.

[capitan_refugio]

The Supreme Court is the same court that was created in Article III of the Constitution. Its membership changes, but it is the Court. As such, the Supreme Court has the obligation, from time to time, to rule on the constitutionality of an issue. Such was the case of Texas v White. This was not a case that involved disagreements between the various branches of government. It was a case that involved the actions of an illicit, secessionist government:

Facts of the Case
In 1851, Congress authorized the transfer of $10 million worth of United States bonds to the state of Texas. The bonds were payable to the state or bearer and were to be redeemable in 1864. In 1862, during the war of rebellion, an insurgent Texas legislature authorized the use of the bonds to purchase war supplies. Four years later, the reconstruction government tried to reclaim the bonds.

Question Presented
Was Texas a state in the union eligible to seek redress in the Supreme Court? Could Texas constitutionally reclaim the bonds?

Conclusion
In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit and that individuals such as White had no claim to the bonds in question. The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." ." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued a state.

This was a precedent-setting decision. It is settled case law. If you do not like the decision, then you need to do as others have done in the past - change the law or amend the Constitution. In a country that respects the rule of law, you can't pick and choose the laws you want to follow, or the decisions you will respect. I personally think Roe v Wade is a crock of crap, and I have worked to elect people who will change (or re-interpret) the law. But until that time, it is a settled matter.

Second point: The term "ex post facto" means "after the fact" or "retroactive." In the Constitution, there are two clauses that address the issue: I.9.3 states that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" by Congress, and I.10.1 states that "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Virtually every court ruling or decision is after the fact. Your argument indicates that you misunderstood the meaning and application of the term. The White v Texas ruling was made in 1869, after the war. Since the Constitution is utterly silent on the validity of secession, the court must look back to precedent and the original intent of the Framers. It is clear the Supreme Court, not withstanding who occupies the seats, is the ultimate judicial arbiter of the meaning and intent of the Constitution. The people, of course, the real sovereign power, have several ways to change the law or the Constitution. The South did not take that course prior to unilateral secession.

Third point: Every state either entered into the Constitution compact willingly, or joined the under its laws. (One can argue about Texas and Hawaii, but it not really germane to this discussion.) I have said on other threads that the constitution did not create a new country or government; it changed the "operating agreement" between the partners. There is several "pre-constitutional laws" (i.e Northwest Ordinance) and institutions of government (Post Office, Army, Navy) that pre-date the Constitution. Think of the Constitutional Union like a general partnership. Once you are part of that partnership, unless your partnership agreement has specific language on how you can get out, you are part of it until you negotiate your way out, or concede your assets. Of course, you can always try and change the nature and terms of the partnership, if you have the votes.

The South didn't have the votes or weren't willing to try and change the terms - so they unilaterally left the partnership. In business, you get sued if you do that. With governments, you get shot, killed, and imprisoned.

[capitan_refugio]

As I am sure you know, there was no Supreme Court prior to the Constitution. That was one of the great failings of the Articles of Confederation. The Supreme Court was created by an Act of Congress (the Federal Judiciary Act) in 1789.

In Marbury v Madison (1803), the Court established the principle of judicial review when it overturned a law passed by congress, as "unconstitutional." Not only is the Suprme Court the arbiter of the meaning and intent of the Constitution, but the are the court of ultimate appeal on all U.S. laws, including those passed by local, county, state, and federal governments, including those laws past under the Articles. The Supreme court had every right to rule on those issues.

You may disagree with the rulings of the courts, but we are a country which respects the rule of law. We can't pick and choose which laws we are going to follow, or which court decisions we are going to respect.

[capitan_refugio]

"So was secession treason? The answer is clearly No."

Article II Section 3 Clause 1:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

In the United States, secession is a political act. If a state had, hypothetically, in 1860 proposed seceding from the Union and attempted to test its political theory in court, it may have succeeded. Also, had that same hypothetical state asked the other states to vote on its release from the union, it may have succeeded. Or, if that state had attempted to pass a constitutional amendment, spelling out how it and other states could leave the Union, it may have succeeed. I see nothing treasonous in attempting to secede through lawful means.

However, when the southerners took up arms against the rest of the United States, which had not acknowledged or recognized the right of unilateral secession, in the eyes of the faithful citizens of the Republic, the southerners were indeed treasonous.

[Arkinsaw]

I again point out my point from my previous post.

The court in Texas v. White says it has the power to rule. But its power to rule over Texas post secession is exactly what we are arguing about in the first place!

You seem to be missing the point that those of us who have reached the conclusion that the decision to secede is reserved to the States and the people because it is not explicity prohibited by the Constitution are arguing that the laws of the US (and therefore the jurisdiction of the court) no longer apply to States that are no longer in the Union.

You are arguing that court was able to rule that secession was unconstitutional because States were not able to secede and were therefore subject to the rulings of that court. That is a circular argument. I ruled, therefore I can rule.

This is not a logical argument. The proof that your opinion is correct is dependent on your opinion being correct.

In your argument you state that it was a ruling involving the actions of an illicit secessionist government. That is the whole freaking argument! You cannot use the assumption that the secession is illicit as a proof that the secession is illicit.

You also state that you are a member of a partnership unless there is specific language allowing you to leave. Unfortunately, the Constitution states that unless something is expressly prohibited by the Constitution then those powers are reserved to the States or the people respectively. The government that the original States created was delegated limited powers for express purposes, and all other powers were retained by the States. It was not a general partnership with a blanket delegation of powers. Some States even mentioned in their ratifications that they reserved the right to withdraw the delegated powers.

Your argument about the original intent of the founders I also question. The founders had just "dissolved the political bonds" that bound them to England. To imagine that they would deny the same to their descendants is silly. England imagined that the colonists complaints were not tyranny but were instead just complaints about an exercise of legal power. Do those who determine that they are tyrannized get to make that decision or does the government they claim is tyrannizing them get to make the decision? The Federal government is not the sole arbiter of the extent of its powers as Madison and Jefferson indicated in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. IMO, a government or a court doesn't get to have the final say in deciding if it is behaving tyrannically or not. Similarly, a government doesn't get to decide if the people can withdraw their consent to be governed or not. BECAUSE NO GOVERNMENT ANYWHERE EVER WOULD.

When I mention Ex Post Facto I mention it in the sense that the Constitution was completely silent on the matter and that no court had mentioned it previously. The Texas v. White case was a post-war case that retroactively said, oh by the way, that was illegal. Not a legislative Ex Post Facto law that criminalized prior conduct for a citizen but Ex Post Facto in the sense that it cannot be used as evidence that the seceding States thought they were doing anything they did not have the power to do.

According to your philosophy, the people of every State must remain in the Union forever regardless of whether or not that Union is providing the benefits it was formed for. That makes no common sense.

As an example. Imagine every State in the Union decided that Alaska would become a permanent national wildlife refuge and no development would ever be allowed there again. The people of Alaska protest. The Senate votes 98-0. The House votes unanimously with only Alaska's reps voting no. The President signs it. The courts rule that the government has created wildlife refuges before and can do so this time.

Who gets to decide if this is tyranny? You say that the people of Alaska just have to smile and take it despite the fact that they deem it tyranny and that it removes the benefits for which they joined the union in the first place. You say that they must smile and take it and that the founders intended it to be so and would be opposed to them breaking the political bonds, opposed to them withdrawing their consent to be governed in such a manner, and be in favor of them being forced to stay in such a union at the point of the bayonet if necessary. I find that VERY difficult to believe. In fact I believe Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson would have a very strongly worded Alaska Resolution written in about a day and a half.

But thats just my opinion. Perhaps I am wrong and the founders and King George would get along well these days.

[Arkinsaw]

Tell us Mr. Blood of Tyrants, who were the "Tyrants in that situation?

You make the mistake of tying the horse that is the political concept of secession to the cart that is slavery.

What you are failing to do is contemplate the political concept of secession on its own. It is entirely possible that one could be completely dismissive of the South's reasons for secession in 1860 and yet understand that the political act of secession itself is not necessarily tied to the reasons of 1860.

In another post I have given the example of a liberal controlled Federal government practicing tyranny over Alaska by making it into a wildlife refuge and prohibiting any development. Nearly everyone here would recognize that as a tyrannous action yet many here have a policy that secession is just bad, bad, bad. In reality, it is this type of abuse that led the founders to sever the political bonds with England. I find it hard to believe that they would deny that to their descendants in such cases. I also find it hard to believe that many here would expect Alaskans to remain in such a union or would force them to do so.

Such tyranny could take many forms. Urban areas in the east and west coasts could decide by the power of their majority that Wyoming would become the national trash dump. Could decide that Nevada would become the national toxic waste and nuclear testing center. Could decide that no mining is to take place in Utah because it is going to be a national monument. The people of those States or Regions have absolutely no recourse if there is not a respected right of peaceful withdrawal of the consent to govern. NONE.

You can rail against the slaveholders of 1860 and think that they had bad reasons to secede and should not have done it and even think that they were traitors to the "spirit" of the union and that the tyranny they decried was blown out of proportion. But to throw away secession as a political recourse against tyranny leaves nothing when something YOU recognize as real tyranny arrives. The precedent has been set for you to be invaded and your house burned down.

[capitan_refugio]

"Secession is of course, a legitimate, peaceful solution when people can no longer agree. It always has been. To argue otherwise would be to say that it was illegitimate for the colonies to seceed from Great Britian."

"Secession is revolution; revolution is war; war against the government of the United States is treason." - Alexander Randall, Jan 1861

"As a necessity, not a choice, we have resorted to the remedy of separation; and henceforth our energies must he directed to the conduct of our own affairs, and the perpetuity of the Confederacy which we have formed. If a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled. But, if this be denied to us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us, with firm resolve, to appeal to arms and invoke the blessings of Providence on a just cause." - Jefferson Davis, February 1861

Both northerners and southerners knew that secession would ultimately lead to war. Our Declaration of Independence in 1776 led to the "Revolutionary" War. The patriots of 1776 legitimately explained their moral foundation for throwing off the Crown's oppresive yoke. The South, first and foremost, wanted to preserve the institution of human slavery. There is no moral equivalency.

[capitan_refugio]

"You seem to be missing the point that those of us who have reached the conclusion that the decision to secede is reserved to the States and the people because it is not explicity prohibited by the Constitution are arguing that the laws of the US (and therefore the jurisdiction of the court) no longer apply to States that are no longer in the Union."

I am not missing the point at all. I believe that your premise is without foundation. You have reached a conclusion, 140+ years after the fact, that there existed a "derived" right (one not explicitly stated) of secession in the Constitution. You do this from an historical point of view. The Supreme Court, about 10 years after the fact, determined no such right ever existed, and they made this determination within the legal framework provided by the document itself. Please note, that the priciples in Texas v White apply to all the states. California, Michigan, or Maine have no more right to secede now as they did 140 years ago; nor do Texas, or Virginia, or South Carolina. You believe that your perspective is as valid as that of the 1869 Court, as both are made after the fact; however you lack the legal standing and authority of the Court. There was no a priori verification of the so-called "right of secession."

You premise is that because secession was not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, it is a right reserved by the states under the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment talks about "powers" rather than "right." The known legislative history of the amemdment indicates that it was almost an afterthought. It has been called a "truism." And no part of the legislative history refers to secession.

The modern interpretation of the 10th is "... to encompass any implied constitutional limitation on Congress' authority to regulate state activities." The 19th century intepretation was that "... Congress has no power to impose on a State officer, as such, any duty whatever, and compel him to perform it." Clearly, the idea was to limit the power of the federal government and to allow more local control. There is nowhere a discussion on the right of secession. The issues of the day were "national banks" and the "collection of taxes."

Your argument is that the Constitutional Union was a convenience for the "sovereign" states, that they could enter or leave at will. My view is that under the Constitution, "union" indicated permanency and a subjugation of some aspects of "state's rights" to federal authority for the purpose of building a nation.

In other posts on this thread I have described how a state, or states, might lawfully attempt to secede from the union. These were not my ideas - some belonged to Jefferson Davis before his jumped ship.

And now a short post script regarding Alaska. I am afraid that what you describe, hypothetically, is truer than you think. It is our heritage that if a people are oppressed, they have the right to revolt. With that right goes the unerstanding that if you fail, you will suffer the consequences. The South tried and failed in their War of Independence. Today, you can not seriously argue that no one in the former CSA is obligated to follow the laws of the USA. Either you are a part of this country, sharing in its opportunities and civil obligations, or you are an anarchist. The antebellum South died in 1865, a victim of its own rhetoric and lack of a solid moral foundation; and with it went one of the great evils ever to mar the continent.

[Ditto]

P.S. Also, they didn't "rebel". They sent a nice polite, well worded letter to inform the king that they would no longer bend their knee to him. The colonies would have been happy to have never fired the first shot but G.B. decided that the colonies were "rebelling".

Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill and numerous other battles took place in the 15 months before they sent that "nice, polite" note. Washington was already in command of the Colonial Army with 15,000 men under his command. The revolution was in full swing with the British landing the largest expeditionary force in military history in New York as the ink was still drying on the DoI and weeks before the King had ever seen it.

[Blessed]

conclusion, 140+ years after the fact, that there existed a "derived" right (one not explicitly stated) of secession in the Constitution. You do this from an historical point of view. The Supreme Court, about 10 years after the fact, determined no such right ever existed, and they made this determination within the legal framework provided by the document itself.

This is the same reasoning used by activist judges today.They assert the Constitution is an evolving document and they rule by their idea of right and wrong. 10 years before the fact the right of secession was a commonly accepted concept throughout the Union. With over 200,000 dead bodies they could rule no other way 10 years after the fact.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Just who attacked whom in those cases?

Here is a little quiz:

True or False. Seeing that the King was not going to change, the colonies would rather have simply dissolved the bonds that bound them to England peacefully.

[Blood of Tyrants]

So it is okay for one group of people to force their will on another (the North) but not for another (slave owners).

As usual, the Lincoln boot lickers clean the crap from his shoes and try to pretend that it never existed.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Secession only leads to war because one group is determine to force their views and tyranny on another.

[Arkinsaw]

I am not missing the point at all. I believe that your premise is without foundation. You have reached a conclusion, 140+ years after the fact, that there existed a "derived" right (one not explicitly stated) of secession in the Constitution. You do this from an historical point of view.

But I think that your premise is without foundation and given my reasons why as I've said in previous posts. As is always the case in this debate, its all a matter of opinion.

You believe that your perspective is as valid as that of the 1869 Court, as both are made after the fact; however you lack the legal standing and authority of the Court.

Thats the fundamental argument. Did the the court have any more legal standing and authority than I do? You have to decide first whether or not secession is a reserved power before you can figure out if the court had any legal standing. That again comes down to your opinion of what it means when the Constitution is silent.

The known legislative history of the amemdment indicates that it was almost an afterthought. It has been called a "truism." And no part of the legislative history refers to secession.

See, this sounds like a liberal arguing against the 2nd Amendment. If one doesn't like the logical results of what the Constitution says, then say that the amendment doesn't really mean what it says or that it doesn't apply to the modern day or that it was just something the founders stuck in for no real reason. The words in the Constitution actually mean things.

The modern interpretation of the 10th is "... to encompass any implied constitutional limitation on Congress' authority to regulate state activities."

Here we are getting close to our problem. You care about what the modern interpretation of the 10th is. I don't. I care only about what the States meant to ratify because that is the only interpretation that has the stamp of the people on it.

The 19th century intepretation was that "... Congress has no power to impose on a State officer, as such, any duty whatever, and compel him to perform it."

I care only about what the States ratified and what they intended to ratify. How it was interpreted by FDR's court or by Chase to mean what they wanted it to mean is less important than what the people, through their States, meant to ratify.

Clearly, the idea was to limit the power of the federal government and to allow more local control. There is nowhere a discussion on the right of secession. The issues of the day were "national banks" and the "collection of taxes."

It doesn't matter that reserved powers were not listed in order. The founders intended that the government be only for delegated purposes. They listed the delegated purposes and powers. They also listed explicitly the things prohibited to States. It would be silly to list 10,000 things NOT delegated to government and list 10,000 things NOT prohibited to States. They just listed the prohibitions and the delegated powers with the notice that anything else belonged to the States or people respectively.

My view is that under the Constitution, "union" indicated permanency and a subjugation of some aspects of "state's rights" to federal authority for the purpose of building a nation.

I don't disagree with that. For instance, I do not believe in the old theory of Nullification. While a member of the Union the States agree to obey the laws of the land. That however, doesn't imply that a State cannot leave the Union if its people desire it.

In other posts on this thread I have described how a state, or states, might lawfully attempt to secede from the union. These were not my ideas - some belonged to Jefferson Davis before his jumped ship.

I assume that it entails asking the other States to let you go. In the case of my Alaska scenario they could ask to be let go. But since their concerns were not taken into account on the initial problem it is rather doubtful that the other States would have any interest in letting them go. Do governments get the final decision on whether their actions are tyrannical or not? If so, there has never been a tyrant.

And now a short post script regarding Alaska. I am afraid that what you describe, hypothetically, is truer than you think.

I'm prettu aware of how bad its getting.

It is our heritage that if a people are oppressed, they have the right to revolt.

This is always an interesting argument also. You argument seems to say that "self determination" is not an inherent right, but fighting an oppressor is a right but if you don't win then the opressor is not an opressor.

I'm sorry. But in my view our nation is founded on the right of self-determination. I don't believe that the founders, having just fought a war to secure self-determination for their States, would deny peaceful self-determination for their descendants. In fact, they exercised peaceful self-determination when they broke the "permanent pre-existing union of the articles" and designed to form a new union with 9 of the States. They were willing to let 4 of that "permanent and pre-existing union" go their own way in peace if they did not wish to join the new union.

Today, you can not seriously argue that no one in the former CSA is obligated to follow the laws of the USA.

My view has always been that forcing the southern States to remain in the union was illegal and contrary to our foundational concepts of self-determination, consent of the governed, and liberty. But long before I arrived on the scene the people of my State and the other southern States accepted the defacto situation and later even embraced it. By functioning as part of the union, regardless of how they got there, they have once again given their consent to be governed. That does not prevent me from holding the view that the right to withdraw is a necessary part of a voluntary Federal Republic.

Either you are a part of this country, sharing in its opportunities and civil obligations, or you are an anarchist.

Not true at all. I consider myself a US citizen and I have no interest in promoting any secession. That doesn't prevent me from believing that States are not bound to a Union that no longer offers them the benefits they joined for or that tyrannizes them. There may come a day when we need this tool.

The antebellum South died in 1865, a victim of its own rhetoric and lack of a solid moral foundation; and with it went one of the great evils ever to mar the continent.

Your opinion on that, which I am not going to debate with you, should have nothing to do with your view of secession as a general concept. I might use my electrical cord to strangle someone, but that does not make all electrical cords bad tools.