Secession and its legalities by Levi S.
(libertarian)
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”- the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. What is this Amendments meaning? It basically states that any powers not set forth for the United States Federal Government in the constitution, are reserved for the individual sovereign states and their governments to decide. Here’s a quick fact: no where in the United States Constitution dose it prohibit secession.
The South had every right to secede from America in 1861, because the question of secession was legitimately left for the states to decide, according to the 10th Amendment. What is secession? Secession is the act of withdrawing or breaking away from a country, state, province, or any political entity.
Many people believe that secession from America was and is a traitorous act against America, even some politicians will agree with the statement. But those people have obviously overlooked the fact that America is founded on secession. In 1776, with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, did America not secede from Britain? Yes, America seceded from Britain to gain independence. The bottom line is; secession is, quite literally, Americas oldest tradition and value. So are the people who cry out “traitor!” when they here of secession, are those people not hypocrites for doing so?
One line in the 10th Amendment, “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The “or to the people” part of the 10th Amendment is very important to the legality of secession. In 1860, the people of South Carolina voted in favor of secession from America. They were soon followed by ten other southern states. All these states took a vote, through the people, to decide whether or not to secede. All these states citizens voted mainly for secession. Now, with that being said, I would like to point out that America is a country “by the people, for the people.” America claims itself to be the worlds “cornerstone of democracy”, yet in 1861, it forced, through military invasion, an entire region of its citizens to remain in the Union, all the while knowing that its citizens had voted in favor of secession. Do you find anything wrong with that picture?
Secession was wanted by the people of the south for a number of reasons, which will be discussed later. Right now, we are focusing on secession and its legality. As permitted by the United States government, “the government can exist only through the will of the people.” Because of Americas being a “true democracy”, the people of the South should have been allowed to peacefully leave and designate their Ordinance of Secession. The fact that the South was militantly invaded is only one of many faults of the Union during the War Between the States, and only go’s to further prove Lincolns tyranny while in office.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Levi S. only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Levi S. is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: September 29, 2011 03:13:14 PM
Simply to play "Devil's Advocate" to your argument, I don't believe you can legitimately say that it was the "will of the people" in the Southern states to vote for secession. At the time, neither slaves, the poor, nor women had the right to vote so to say that the state legislators had the majority of people behind them is misleading. If such a vote were to occur today, you can legitimately make that argument since the right to vote is granted to a majority of residents within a state.
Now whether that argument legitimizes the Union occupation of the Southern states would be a weak one due to the fact that any action by a nation's military against its own people is wrong. However, you can also argue that since the Southern states represented a foreign country due to their secession status, the act of using the military in this fashion was not necessarily illegal or immoral (at least in terms of 19th Century standards).
Posted By: Bill Walker
Date: October 2, 2011 04:57:18 PM
I'm glad this author is not my lawyer because I know I'd lose whatever the case was.
The author begins his "premise" by announcing "no where in the United States Constitution dose [sic] it prohibit secession." The author should actually read the Constitution before making such a statement.
To wit:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: (Powers of Congress): To...suppress Insurrections..." Obviously secession is an act of insurrection against the United States it is textually prohibited by the Constitution.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 (1): No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...coin money..." Obviously the south did all of this again a clear violation of the Constitution by the act of secession.
Same section, Clause 3: No State shall, with the Consent of Congress... keep troops or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, ... engage in War..." Again the South did all of this, again a direct textual violation of the Constitution.
Article VI, Section 2: This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land...and Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The fact the people of the state voted in this instance is irrelevant because their actions were unconstitutional to begin with as they violated the supreme law of the land.
Same Article, Section 3: ...Members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers...of the several States shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution..." Clearly a violation of oath of office by those of the south.
Want to again state the Constitution does not address or prohibit secession?
As to the Tenth Amendment. The amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." As I've clearly shown there are several examples in the Constitution that prohibit the states from secession or the acts associated with such secession therefore the author's premise is in fact incorrect.
The author then cites the actions of the United States in 1776 saying the American was "founded" on secession. He ignores a legal fact which is also referred to in the Constitution. In Article VI, Section 2 it refers to "and all Treaties made,...under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;..." The author forgets the Treaty of Paris (1783) in which the British formally granted the United States sovereignty. By this legal act the British formally gave up any claim to rule the United States. More important to the point is the fact the British agreedto the acts of the United States; the United States did not agree to the acts of the southern states in 1861. Therefore to use the example of 1776 is again incorrect as no treaty of agreement exists between the United States and the southern states which did occur in 1783.
In sum, the author's premise is incorrect. There was nothing "legal" by the south's actions. I will grant the author one point however. The Civil War was started by an invasion of the Union into the state of Virginia not by the firing on one of the forts in the southern states. Here the United States did ignore the Constitution.
Article IV, Section 4 requires that on "Application of the legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) [the United States shall protect the states] "against domestic Violence." There is no record of the southern states asking for help regarding the domestic violence of those committing insurrection against the United States. Therefore the United States did violate the Constitution in not getting permission first from the states before invading. A technical point but nevertheless a true point by the author.
In any event, the Constitution does address the legality of his issue and clearly demonstrates it is wrong.
