“Was the United States federal government a thing of force or a
thing of reason? The first proposition was established by Lincoln and
has become the accepted American reality. The second proposition about
the Constitution and government is irrefutably true in history and
philosophy. It was maintained at great cost by the soldiers and
statesmen of the South until each were quashed by force. The ablest of
these Southern spokesmen was the philosopher Albert Taylor Bledsoe.
Given the great rampaging beast that the government has become in our
day, it is surely time to look once more at some old and forgotten
truths about what America was intended to be in contrast to what it has
become.”
-Clyde N. Wilson – Emeritus Distinguished Professor of History – University of South Carolina
“Albert Taylor Bledsoe’s ‘Is Davis a Traitor?’ is, without exception, the finest book on the subject of the constitutional right of secession ever written.
Its clarity and force know no equal. Its argument awaits a nationalist
response still, nearly 150 years since its publication. This new edition from Mike Church and Brion McClanhan makes the book accessible for contemporary readers”
Was secession a constitutional right previous to the war of 1861?
ReplyDeleteWilliam, there have been thousands of pages written on this very subject, with no real answer so far. Some assume that secession is constitutional since the Constitution doesn't expressly for bid it. That is obviously false since there are millions of things the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid. Some say the original colonies can secede but not the other states, since those states were created by Congress, etc. I don't believe the Federal Government would allow it now, but that is just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAmar specifically cites the example of New York's ratification as suggestive that the Constitution did not countenance secession. Anti-federalists dominated the Poughkeepsie Convention that would ratify the Constitution. Concerned that the new compact might not sufficiently safeguard states' rights, the anti-federalists sought to insert into the New York ratification message language to the effect that "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years." The Madison federalists opposed this, with Hamilton, a delegate at the Convention, reading aloud in response a letter from James Madison stating: "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever" [emphasis added]. Hamilton and John Jay then told the Convention that in their view, reserving "a right to withdraw [was] inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."The New York convention ultimately ratified the Constitution without including the "right to withdraw" language proposed by the anti-federalists.
ReplyDeleteAmar explains how the Constitution impacted on state sovereignty:
In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 –Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence.
Surely, in general terms ratification precludes secession at a later date. Texas perhaps is a special case but even in all parts of America other than Texas, there is general acceptance that secession by Texas and any other Stare is not only unworkable but detrimental to the nation as a whole. If readers agree with this proposition and if the constitutional lawyers can be kept out of the discussion, then the strength of the argument for unity is obvious.
ReplyDeleteI have often fumed at the provisions of the second and while I completely agree with the provision at the time the Bill of Rights was passed through Congress, I can see the absolute necessity for its amendment within the context of modern day America.
With regard to the provisions of the constitution concerning the formation of one indivisible nation from a group of disparate states, you have a foundation stone for nationhood as good as any yet devised.
As with all things, age changes appearance and usage brings stress to the core values held by generations long past. It is the task of the generations of the present to preserve and amend the structure you have built on that foundation stone. If you tamper too much with the cement which binds the building to the bedrock, you risk the fracture of the entire structure. Look to history and the Roman Empire; it should have lasted for another thousand years but failed because the basic tenants of civilization were ignored.
If some maverick movement can get leverage towards secession of any one or more states, the whole will be irreparably weakened.
Cheers from Aussie
What if the people elect a House, Senate, and Executive that promote the division of the country during their campaigns?
ReplyDeleteKingston mentions a strong foundation. What is stout about the massive debt that tugs at the fabric of our nation?
"What if the people elect a House, Senate, and Executive that promote the division of the country during their campaigns?"
ReplyDeleteIt won't happen William. those that support secession of one or any state are fringe candidates. The majority of Americans IMO would reject secession based on the constitution and our country's history. Very few want to see the breakup of our unique union. Even with all the problems we face. We are stronger as one then as one nation then as a confederation which was a prime reason for the change from the Articles to a national constitution agreed to by all parties at the time. If you want the right to secede well then you need to pass an amendment because although the constitution does not specifically prohibit secession it is strongly implied that the union is forever. That point is also agreed to by all parties involved in the explanation of the constitution in the Federalist papers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf the people of a particular state elect a government that is pro secession it still takes the permission of the whole for that to happen. William you want to treat states rights as they were under the Articles of Confederation which did lead to a lot of leeway for the individual states. as King states ratification precludes secession at a later date. When a state ratified the constitution they gave up most of their rights as states. States right are subordinate to national control after that ratification. It's in the constitution that the fed trumps the state every time. We are one William. Forever> Accept it as fact.
ReplyDeleteWilliam above poses an interesting question and highlights a problem facing both major parties individually and the states severally in the event of any successful secession movement.
DeleteSo where to start with Williams post? Firstly William is obviously speaking from a standpoint of National Politics, Individual states would not and could not campaign for universal divisibility; it would not make sense electorally and would make even less sense from a practical standpoint. How can any State government speak for the country? So we must look at the National scene. Perhaps in time the internal divisions and the economic strangulation of the nation may cause national schism. The unsustainable fiscal debit may push a movement towards dissolution of the present arrangements, but only when the dog kennel mentality of dog eat dog becomes the over riding feature of your population.
So hopefully no secession and no break up of the nation. William of course is totally correct when he cites the fiscal debit tugging at the fabric of the nation. Here is the biggest conundrum of the past one hundred years. You have never before been is such severe trouble., Many times in the past, America has been in deep doggy doo but always you have survived and emerged stronger. Your first glorious struggle to win independence was propped up by France, many argue the funds have never been repaid but some clever accounting and politicking seem to have resolved the question. Old Hickory, Andrew Jackson is best remembered as being the only President to pay off the National Debit; his Sec Treasury(s) seldom gets a mention.
WW1 started with America being a debtor nation, by the end of hostilities you were a creditor nation due to fence sitting and supplying your exports to both sides. Many believe the entry of America into the war when it was almost over was a political ploy to advance American control at the Versailles conference.
WW2 Can is seen as a repeat of WW1 with the isolationists in Congress holding back FDR who had a genuine desire to become involved early on. Pearl Harbor decided the issue and by extension, decided the result of the war.
Breton Woods did much for stabilization of world currency and economic development followed with the establishment of the World Bank... I believe your problems became serious in the star wars era. This together with the unbounded optimism of moon landings and the demonstrated superiority over the USSR all, as the say, cost plenty.
So there you are,as a friendly foreigner I have taken great liberty in so addressing my friends. I do believe however you will at least see my point of view. I only wish I could see the future as clearly as I can see the past.
] Cheers from Aussie
Forever is a long time rick. A few more States requesting a constitutional convention and the geographic alignment of the US could change very quickly. Without a bullet fired, without undo hardship on those States that are carrying the water for our current entitlement nightmare.
DeleteThe USSR thought forever was in the cards also In 1989.
Ok forever as long as you and me are concerned. Your little movement isn't as big as you think it is.
DeleteThe movement has little to do with the several States demanding a constitutional convention. You are content Rick to live under a tyrant, I am not. A majority of representatives at both the State and Federal levels do not agree with you.
DeleteWe are the "United States" after all. Each State retains the right to become un-united.
ReplyDelete