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.

[sheltonmac]

I have yet to hear any of these neo-confederates list the "train of abuses" as in the DOI

How's this for starters?

Should We Consider Updating the Declaration of Independence?

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another; a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to make that separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations reduces them to despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patience of these fifty states; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their system of government. The history of the present federal government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all working toward the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

It has refused to abide by the strict guidelines of the United States Constitution, and has instead decided that it alone will decide what is necessary for the public good.

It has forbidden state legislatures to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, and has allowed the federal judiciary to strike down countless state laws as unconstitutional, in clear violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.

It has refused all states the proper control of land within their respective borders and has instead used its power to confiscate even more property.

It has enacted legislation, on issues ranging from alcohol consumption to the ownership of firearms, for the sole purpose of forcing states and individual citizens into compliance with its wishes.

It has unlawfully persecuted, under various administrations, citizens and organizations for opposing its invasions on the rights of the people.

It has continued to pass laws affecting campaign financing and election procedures that have only served to exclude ordinary citizens from the political process.

It has endeavored to prevent states from taking steps to curb illegal immigration and has refused to protect the sovereign borders of this nation.

It has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing to equally apply the laws it passes to members of the federal government.

It has allowed judges to become dependent upon their own political ideology without any regard for the Constitution.

It has established a multitude of new bureaucracies, and has sent out swarms of officers to harass the people.

It has maintained, in times of peace, standing armies both here on our shores and overseas.

It has effectively rendered the military independent of and superior to the civil authority.

It has subjected us to things foreign to our Constitution, giving its assent to burdensome acts of legislation:

For forcing states to quarter illegal immigrants.

For protecting them and refusing to deport even those convicted of serious crimes.

For implementing protectionist measures that have limited our ability to engage in free trade with all parts of the world.

For imposing taxes, hidden or otherwise, without our consent.

For threatening to deprive us, in times of perceived crisis, of the benefits of trial by jury.

For federalizing offenses that should remain under the jurisdiction of the states.

For implementing a foreign policy that has this nation engaged in costly and unnecessary entanglements overseas.

For taking away state sovereignty, abolishing federalism, and altering fundamentally our entire system of government.

For superseding state legislatures, and investing in Congress the power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever; including areas such as employment, health care, education, and housing, among others.

It has waged war against citizens of the United States by using armed troops to enforce unconstitutional laws.

It has denied states the control over valuable natural resources within their own borders.

It is, at this time, engaged in armed conflict overseas without a formal and constitutional declaration of war.

It has turned businesses into government agencies, forcing workers to report the "suspicious" activities of their fellow citizens to authorities.

It has succeeded, through its interventionist policies, in funding and arming enemies of the United States of America.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government, whose character is marked by every act which may define a tyranny, is unfit to be the government of a free people.

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by Congress, the president, and the judiciary to extend an unwarranted jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of the founding of our nation. We have appealed to their sense of justice and fair play, and we have appealed to the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They have been deaf to the voice of justice and of reason. We must, therefore, hold them as we hold the rest of mankind-enemies in war, friends in peace.

We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare, that these states are, and of right ought to be, free and independent; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the existing federal government, and that as free and independent states, they have full authority to reassume those powers guaranteed to the states and the people by the Constitution. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

[hobbes1]

You are correct. It is a Secessionist Document. However, The Difference between Secession and Treason, was Victory on the Battlefield SOmething the South wqs unable to attain.

Further, The Long List of usurpations, in the DOI, since you are content to vouch for it's legitimacy, is hardly matched by the 'We don't like this game, so we are taking our ball and going home' treason movement, as practiced by the Confederacy.

Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 was quite clear.

[Scenic Sounds]

So was secession treason?

You need to run this by Ann Coulter. ;-)

[hobbes1]

One would be hard pressed to disagree...LOL

[Blood of Tyrants]

The Winners write the History Books.....Sorry.

What a stupid, asinine answer. Just because it was written doesn't make it true. Or do you believe everything the the hildebeast's book, too?

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.

[sweetliberty]

"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."

That seems to say it all right there.

[JohnGalt]

From a legal perspective your case is sound (not saying its correct) but some still believe in a higher justice-- not saying you don't, just that I heard your position in public school and college, and have still sided with the South.

I suggest you look at it from a political perspective and the situation in Virginia Feb-April 1861 and tell me that the Lincoln Administration were men of peace, rather than worshippers of Mars.

Son of the Union, Son of the Confederacy, Son of the Revolution regards,

[vetvetdoug]

This issue is addressed in a book written by Alfred Bledsoe, Was Jefferson Davis a Traitor or The War Between the States. Bledsoe spent the entire Civil War in England researching the only other copy of our Constitution so that he could defend Davis and the South in the case Southerners lost and were persecuted by a court of law. Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, knew that he would have to meet Bledsoe in a court if any of the former Confederates were charged with treason and he knew that the North would lose in an honest court of law. Ask yourself, why wasn't any of the secessionists ever tried for treason or prosecuted in a court? One knows that the radical Northerners would have liked nothing better than to hang Southerners but they didn't, why? The answer is in the knowledge of Chase and Bledsoe.

[hobbes1]

One knows that the radical Northerners would have liked nothing better than to hang Southerners but they didn't, why?

That...is utterly ridiculous. The more simple fact is, that it is grievously unstatesmanlike to rub salt in the wound AFTER the successful prosecution of a war, against those you would presume to rule...

(Remember the Admonition of Lord Cornwallis to Col. Tavington about the manner in which he is prosecuting the war....contained in The Patriot..)

[hobbes1]

Oh, Yes, and Inversely, you'll notice the Confederacy did not take their claims to the Supreme Court.

Because as has been pointed out, the Constitution Expressly Forbids what they did (Art1.Sec10 Clause1.)

[TheDon]

Cute, but neither accurate, nor relevant to the discussion at hand. The citizens of the US get the government they vote for. When we no longer have the right to vote, then we'll dust off your submission for a new DOI.

In the meantime, I'll keep waiting for the neo-confederates to supply the "train of abuses" the Confederates used to justify their rebellion against the lawful authority of the US Constitution.

[XRdsRev]

As an aside, taking this issue one step further, could treason and legitimate rebellion have existed at the same time within the Southern secession movement ? For example, it could be argued that that members of Southern legislatures and militias from states that had legitimately voted to secede using proper political means were engaged in a rebellion seeking to divest themselves and their state from ties to the Federal government.

Whereas members of legislatures and militias from states like Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri who served in the Confederate forces, were from states that never seceded from the Union were possibly guilty of treason because they not only sought to dissolve their state's association with the Federal Government but to overthrow the legally elected (pro Union) governments in their respective states including the Federal representatives of such.

[Friend of thunder]

I still think it matters; especially given the recent spur in constitutional discussions on FR threads around viable options for restoring our republic in the wake of two SCOTUS rulings.

Are you suggesting that Secession is, or could be, a “viable options for restoring our republic”?

[azhenfud]

"The citizens of the US get the government they vote for. When we no longer have the right to vote, then we'll dust off your submission for a new DOI."

Billbears,
Could I impose upon you for your thoughts on this classic statement?
I thank you in advance...
D.V.
Az

[JohnGalt]

Jacobinism is the statist kool-aid, and simply carries no wait as an argument. It lacks even an emotional appeal to 'the chords of memory.'

What choice did Virginia have in Feb-April 1861? Side question: were you cheering for the ATF April 19, 1993? (Of course you weren't.)

You attempts at pan-Southernism and pan-Confederacy as if it was a monolith of agreed upon opinion illustrate an intellectual laziness that even us Northern Yankees can see right through.

[JohnGalt]

That is an excellent point, and if you had a chance to read Thomas Flemings "When This Cruel War Is Over" (2000, NY Times Best-seller) you got a glimpse of blatant (by legal definition) treason running up to officers in the Union army who had trouble fighting for the butchers of the North.

War is the destroyer of civil society and throwing around legalese to explain this or that is so unappealing.

[sheltonmac]

Cute, but neither accurate, nor relevant to the discussion at hand.

It is relevant in the sense that states still have as much right to secede now as they did in 1861.

As far as enumerating specific grievances, no such list is required. However, if it's specificity you want, check out a few of the Declarations of Causes of Secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html). Yes, slavery was an issue, but the bigger issue was the preservation of states' rights.

[azhenfud]

"Are you suggesting that Secession is, or could be, a 'viable options for restoring our republic'?"

Stainless borrowed it.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson

[PatrioticAmerican]

“Article 1 Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
Refresh my memory, what did the sesseionists call their "Country" ?”

First, a state is a state in regards to those state within the union. Those states that have left the union are no longer covered by that clause. The clause relates to foreign entities.


“Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

Just what does that have to do with secession? That relates to dividing or joining states to form new states. That was placed in their to prevent a hostile takeover by forming states with greater powers.

“Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Again, this covers only states belonging to the union. It does not prevent secession.

[azhenfud]

In the Articles of Secession, as ratified by the Southern states, states' rights and sovereignty were mentioned numerously whereas "slave-holding" was used only to specify which states were being abused by the government.

They can be found here:

http://www.17thmississippi.com/artssec.html