If At First You Don’t Secede
03. Feb, 2009 
16 Comments
Guest Commentary from VirginiaConservative
If you have spent anytime at all in the western part of Virginia, you’ll find that monuments dedicated to U.S. Civil War are just about everywhere. For example, there are historical markers, statues, even an occasional flag or two. Generally, a lot of people who are native to the Shenandoah Valley are quite suspicious of the government in Washington due, in part, to the events before, during, and after that conflict. After all, a number of battles took place here and tales of the brutal actions of General Sheridan linger in the minds of many to this very day.
But now time for a bit of history, eh? The idea of secession was integral to the formation of the United States of America. After all, the War for American Independence against Great Britain was a secessionist movement. The thirteen colonies (or states) no longer sought redress or a greater sway in the matter of the government of Great Britain, but instead wished to break free of that government and to rule themselves as they saw fit.
Once they achieved victory, out of concern over a strong federal government, the states first came together to create a very weak united federal government under a document called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. This largely ineffective “perpetual” government was soon replaced by our present Constitution. But with this new government did the states reserve the right to secede if they so chose? There was no clear-cut answer.
During the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, a number of New England states threatened secession over the issue of the Louisiana Purchase. His response? “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the Western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the Eastern.” Jan. 29, 1804. And “God bless them both, & keep them in Union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” August 12, 1803.
Andrew Jackson took the opposite viewpoint when faced with prospect of South Carolinian secession over the issue of tariffs. “The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation” Dec. 10, 1832.
In neither of these two cases, of course, did any state or states secede from the union.
Then, on December 24, 1860, after the election of Abraham Lincoln, South Carolina issued the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union (the full text of which can be found here). In the ensuing weeks, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas all withdrew from the Union. In response, on April 15, President Lincoln issued a call for troops to put down what he saw as an illegal and unconstitutional rebellion.
Although an earlier effort by some Virginians to secede failed, the government was quite unwilling to take up arms against its Southern neighbors and therefore passed an ordinance of secession two days later. (text found here). This act was followed by Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina all removing themselves from the Union. Perhaps the history you learned in high school would lead you to believe that everyone thought secession was illegal and that war was the only solution. Not so.
For example, consider the mixed opinions of the then living former Presidents of the country. Martin Van Buren (8th, New York) opposed secession and was an advocate for war. John Tyler (10th, Virginia) supported peaceful secession and was even elected to represent Virginia in the Confederate Congress. Millard Fillmore (13th, New York) initially in favor of the war later opposed Lincoln and supported the Democrats and peace in 1864. Franklin Pierce (14th, New Hampshire) although against secession was a heavy critic of the war and Lincoln, saying, “‘I will never justify, sustain, or in any way or to any extent uphold this cruel, heartless, aimless unnecessary war.’ He opposed just as firmly Lincoln’s violations of civil rights, and thought the Emancipation Proclamation showed, his biographer states ‘that the true purpose of the war was to wipe out the states and destroy property.’” (Jefferson Davis, Unconquerable Heart, page 360). James Buchanan (15th, Pennsylvania) spoke against secession but also against a war to prevent it.
In an 1860 message to Congress he stated, “Our union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war.” After the bloody and costly war ended one would expect the issue of secession to be as dead as the mounds of fallen soldiers. In 1869, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that secession was unconstitutional, stating, “The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.”
Let us flash back to the present. I cannot recall ever meeting a Virginian who called for secession, at least orally. The phrase “the South will rise again” was more of a metaphor than a true call for action and I assumed that such was the same in other former confederate areas as well. No one actually advocates secession these days. Boy, was I wrong and my experiences in Tennessee and South Carolina taught me otherwise.
Like so many Virginians, a lot of Tennesseans and South Carolinians maintain a healthy distrust of the federal government. But some go further, advocating secession for his or her home state or region. Of these people and movements, the most organized that I found was the League of the South. They maintain chapters are not only in the traditional south, but also claim members in California, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Oklahoma, and West Virginia (who would think?). I would suspect, however, that most of their branches outside of the Deep South are quite small. After all, how many of you knew about the Virginia group? The purpose of this organization, according to their website, is “To advance the cultural, social, economic, and political well-being and independence of the Southern people by all honourable means.” But the ideas of secession permeate more than just nostalgic Southerners.
For example, in Hawaii and Alaska, the two most recent additions to the American Union, there are dedicated secessionist movements. Then you also have the neighboring New England states of Vermont and New Hampshire. As a handful in Vermont look to create a quasi-socialist paradise, two groups vie for control of New Hampshire, activist libertarians and theocratic Christians. Will any of these efforts succeed and break away? And if they attempt a feat, what will be the federal government’s response? Will we be engulfed or torn asunder as a result of another Civil War?
So what are my thoughts on this subject? My theory on American government, be it local, state, or federal, is that the primary focus is and should be to protect the lives, liberty, and property of her citizens. Should any government fail its critical duties, then the people (ideally, through their elected representatives) have the right to withdraw from this corrupt and worthless government.
Way too radical, you think? Do these thoughts not hearken back to the ideas which founded this great nation? Did Thomas Jefferson not write similarly in the Declaration of Independence,“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”?
Secession, in my mind, serves as final tool to bulwark against the threat of tyranny. Like war, it should not be used lightly or without cause, but if a state (or locality) feels as if the federal (or state) government has usurped power or has repeatedly violated the Constitution then it can and should exercise this extreme option. It should serve as a last resort to advance the cause of liberty, freedom, and self-determination.
Does the government exist to serve the people or do the people exist to serve the government? Don’t local, state, and federal governments serve at the pleasure of the citizenry? How much closer would the government adhere to the agreed upon rules if they could be punished with the loss of revenue and constituents? Say that Massachusetts wished to become its own nation to better promote their liberal values.
Although I would think such a move terribly foolish, regardless of the reasoning, I would respect the will of the people of Massachusetts and could not neither take up arms against them nor advocate reaffixing the state to the nation under threat of violence. To do so would undermine the spirit of liberty and the right of the men and women of Massachusetts to consent to their own governance. All this being said, I truly hope that American government can be restored rather than broken apart. Despite the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of secession, I predict that the issue will resurface in the mainstream within the next 25 years.
Will the American experiment crumble into fifty separate nations or will the issue be resolved through peaceful diplomacy…or bloody warfare? Are we, or will we be, a Republic of fifty United States or an Empire of provinces? Therein lies our answer. If we lay aside or are stripped of the principles and values under which this nation was founded, then I have little choice but to say, “If at first you don’t secede…”
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
In my opinion the direction America is headed is toward a bloody revolutionary civil war to throw off a despotic unconstitutional government. I see that happening but then after winning that war what is next? The Constitution is shredded and no more, so a new Constitution is written and ratified. Is it assumed the new Constitution would be any better than the old one? And who would be obligated and what power granted to enforce that new Constitution?
Presently, and since 1787, the People are obligated to enforce the Constitution, not on themselves, but on government. If the People won’t enforce the old Constitution is it possible they would enforce the new one?
I would like to challenge the author’s theory on the purpose of American government, “should be to protect the lives, liberty, and property of her citizens.” Are not a free people obligated to protect their lives, property, neighbor, and liberty?
Reference the Constitution:
Article I, Section 1.
Article I, Section 2.
Article I, Section 7.
Amendments 5, 6, and 7 of the Bill of Rights.
As for protection I read the Constitution as delegating the federal government to power to protect the physical land of the USA, settle squabbles between the States, and domestically very little else.
Allan
Allan, I think you are correct in your assumption that the United States is heading toward a nationwide show-down between the soverein States and We The People on one side, and the bloated, overly-officious, constitutionally-oblivious Federal government on the other. I believe that the U.S. is looking to be another victim of the same sort of independence minded citizenry as was responsible for the break-up of the Soviet Empire. You can only push Americans so far, and then they will demand a return of their stolen constitutional rights.
As far as the composition of a new Constitution, I think we can look to history for the answer to that. When the Southern States seceded from the U.S., they took with it the portions of the U.S. Constitution which they contined to cherish, and rewrote other sections which they felt needed to be revised. The Confederate Constitution altered the term of the President to one 6 year term, and totally banned the importation of slaves in an effort to begin phasing out chattel slavery over a period of time, such as was done successfully in the North, so as to preclude the financial ruination of the planter class as well as to allow new freedmen to enter American society on a gradual basis. Afterall, American society, to them, was a “foreign” society compared to what they had in Africa or even to what they had as a slave class in America. It was generally believed that sudden emancipation would leave unprepared Africans without any tools for survival in America, and was generally considered to be more inhumane than slavery, in which everything was provided for them by their masters.
I believe that a break-up of the U.S. would result in a series of different confederations throughout the American landmass. As an example, Mississippi and Massachusetts, or Georgia and California have few things in common with one another socially, so how can “one size fits all” laws, such as we now operate under in this huge union, possibly be right for all States and all citizens. The answer, of course, is that they can’t! For this reason, I foresee confederacies established between like-minded States and citizens, each with their own constitutions that suit them best. If Massachusetts wants same-sex marriage, unlimited abortion, a strong central government, etc., let them confederate with like-minded States such as, perhaps, Connecticutt, and let them compose their constitution so as to protect those “rights” for their citizenry, while a confederation formed in the traditional Southland may want a constitution granting very limited powers to the central government, such as the U.S. Constitution under which we are supposed to be operating today.
I know not what will happen tomorrow but I have a fairly good idea what is happening to the USA and Americans yesteryear, yesterday, and today. By studying the Constitution I have a fairly good idea about what the federal government was created to do and empowered to do.
The body politic, the very land, and the mind of Americans is invaded by an all consuming parasite know by the name of Israel. The American people have no direct power at all against that parasite. The only indirect power the People have to toss off that parasite is to force government Officials to honor their Oath of Office (or be fired by not reelecting). The anti-America parasite cannot prevail under an enforced Constitution.
No matter what Constitution (Law) to Rule government the safest depository for the protection of freedom, and or Rights, rests with the People, not government.
Allan
Allan,
I was mostly with you until you made the comment about Israel. Also, how could one person take on a foreign invader? That is a valid function of a government.
The people of this country have allowed themselves to be dumbed-down by allowing the government (via politicians) control the education of our youth, among other things.
Most people are way too much self-centered which leads to the “what’s in it for me” attitude when it comes to gov’t handouts.
Thus, I it is up to a minority of the people (again) to try to set things right. Hopefully, though, not through violence, but I’m afraid it may have to come to that.
Steve from Tenessee
Steve, Israel is a major enemy of the United States and the world. I suggest looking into that subject aside what Israel supporters have to say.
What foreign invader are you talking about? I have absolutely no reliable information a foreign “country” invaded the USA. Constitutionally the U.S. government cannot war against anything but a country and then only when war is declared on that country by Congress.
Check out the USS Liberty for a foreign country attacking, killing 32 and wounding 172 American sailors in 1967.
Another very good place to start looking is into the “fact” Congress has unconstitutionally funded and armed Israel for 60 years. The bullets the Israel army uses to murder civilians in Gaza are “criminally” furnished by Congress.
The current war in Iraq is for Israel not for the U.S. Look up the creation of the modern country Israel created 1948 by deception and stolen from Palestinians.
As for bloody U.S. revolution my hope is it never happens; Constitutional America cannot be restored by Arms.
Seems to me to set things right Americans must fight and conquer government legislation infringing and outright outlawing Rights/Freedom in the USA. How can Americans set another country right with a criminal (unconstitutional) government in their own country? Clean your house before cleaning your neighbor’s house. Pick the log from your eye before complaining about the splinter in the other fellow’s eye.
Allan
Who violates the 10th Amendment every day – Israel or the US Government?
Who takes our tax money and gives it to their bankster friends – Israel or the US governmet?
Who sends our military all around the world – driving us to the brink of economic collapse – Israel or the US Government?
Who turns the 1st amendment into mockery with “free speech zones” – Israel or the US government?
Who has created literally thousands of gun regulations – Israel or the US Government?
I could go on, but to me it’s pretty clear who the problem is, and they sit in Washington D.C., not Jerusalem.
Try to stay on topic here, Allan, ok?
I’m all for it, I live in Texas.
Michelle, I think a lot of us are for it, and there’s a good first step in Texas with a resolution recently introduced to reclaim sovereignty. You can read about it here
George Soros, I believe, commented that what we are witnessing is analogous to the break up of the Soviet Union. Interestingly, a few weeks back, a Russian economist/sociologist, I believe, published a map of his prediction of how the USA would disintegrate. New England would unify and align itself with the EU, China would dominate the Far West, Texas forms a relationship with Mexico, etc. Now, only a month or so out, this scenario seems plausible. Money will be the driver once the public realizes that taxes are paying for the banks losses. “Socialize losses, privatize profits.” Once, the public connects the dots, won’t they simply say, “We’re leaving,” and abandon the massive, rather, gargantuan multi-trillion dollar debt to Washington? Why wouldn’t, say, New Englanders, find themselves in a better position as an independent nationthat was manageable and not saddled with a debt that staggers the imagination? All that would remain of the us would be the Federal District. I’m curious about your take on this because, MONEY is always the driver, and the Federal government is trying to print its way out of a bank-generated dilemma. We seem to be living in an episode of history that absolutely boggles the mind. Gerald Celente talks about an upcoming tax revolt so breakup would seem logical. And it seems it would happen without a bang but rather a sigh and a whimper. What do you think? Thank you.
Absolutely we’re headed for some sort of change. As to what it is, who knows?
As a Texan (non-native, but then, there’s very few native Texans), I’m pretty much certain my state would be lots better off outside the union. For starters, we’d immediately have around 25% more spending money in everyone’s hands, we’d see employment costs drop 15% overnight. Without federal government meddling, we could allow unfettered immigration if we desired, covering our future accounts problem, and we can allow true free trade with Mexico, leading to prosperity for both our nations.
But why stop there? There are quite a few ‘western’ states that have similar jurisprudence and tradition to Texas. Let’s invite New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Oklahoma to join us. Kansas and Arkansas if they like, although I’m not certain about Louisiana. That’d create a country spanning from the gulf to Canada, with diverse land, people and abilities and provide plenty of room to grow.
Now that sure sounds like a much better “stimulus” plan than what’s coming out of Washington DC! The only thing they’ve been stimulating these days is the price of gold and silver…
AMEN!! I pray for the day SC and other like minded states can depart from this corrupt union. If they do not, I would be willing to move to a state/region that does. Yes, the times are changing….
Joe, I think there’s plenty of people who feel the same way you do. There has to be a point where people say enough is enough! While I would be quite happy to see a federal government simply abide by their own rules – the constitution – I would think that sooner or later if they don’t, people are going to give up on that concept. Maybe the Free State Project is something you might be interested in…
The blueprint for getting this done in an orderly fashion has already been written: “Molon Labe” by Kenneth W. Royce, although the process as he developed it takes awhile, which we may not have… See also “Hologram of Liberty” which explains that all this “unconstitutional” stuff we’ve been railing about actually is constitutional because while Jefferson was gone to Europe, Hamilton and Madison took the word “expressly” out of the 10th amdt (should read “powers not expressly delegated…”).
There is no right to secede. There never was a right to secede. Elections have consequences. There will be a federal election in 2010. Make sure your people vote. I will vote the way I shot.
So, what do you propose to do if people in an area actually DO secede? Will you support dropping bombs on your neighbors?
And, do you think Jefferson, Madison, Paine and Henry were all criminals?