Do States Have A Right of Succession?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/0...-of-secession/

.Do States Have a Right of Secession?
Walter Williams (2002.04.19 ) Politics
Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, “The Real Lincoln,” Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let’s look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Texas leaves the Union I am moving there immediately. Provided that they boot out all the liberals and other assorted characters of low repute.-
Only state that I ever envision would dare try to leave is Texas.. Question is, is it Unconstitutional to do so?-Tyr

[gabosaurus]

States do not have a right to succeed.

YOU, however, can leave whenever you want to. The sooner the better. I would suggest Saudi Arabia. There are zero liberals there.

[SassyLady]

Wow, very tolerant of you, Gabby. You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing him of.

[SassyLady]

I hear an Indian nation is seceding.

[revelarts]

Sure they/we have a right.
On a pragmatic level I'm glad Lincoln did what he did though.
But now, IMO, a greater evil, like slavery, is not at issue.
The U.S was founded on the idea freedom, I think calling of the Civil War "the last battle of the American Revolution" is appropriate.

But the original understanding of the union of States was voluntary.
Does Spain or Great Britain have the right to leave European "Union"?
Similar here.

If we become part of a "North American Union" could we leave?
Can nation "states" leave the U.N.?
Does an abused woman have right to leave a marriage? In Muslims countries it aint so easy. In a free country she can get out of dodge without being concerned about her neighbors beating back into the house with her husband.
Some peoples idea of patriotism is that the appearance of union and the flag means more than the gov't's real relationship being based the realities of freedoms promoted in the Constitution.


I'm not sure secession is the best idea, but it may be the only decent option soon, if not already.
But is it a right? Sure.

[DragonStryk72]

We used to, until like half the country decided it was gonna go ahead and do just that. I mean, neither side was really at a point where they could survive without the other. Even with slaves, the south would've collapsed somewhat quickly due to their limited industrial capacity (One of the reasons the south lost the war.). The North, meanwhile, didn't have the growing capacity of the South

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We used to, until like half the country decided it was gonna go ahead and do just that. I mean, neither side was really at a point where they could survive without the other. Even with slaves, the south would've collapsed somewhat quickly due to their limited industrial capacity (One of the reasons the south lost the war.). The North, meanwhile, didn't have the growing capacity of the South

I disagree, I believe that states do have that right. My opening posts listed a few famous founders and constitutional experts that state the states do have that right. Im sure I can next post list a few more .
Rev. was right it may come to that soon . Texas wil be the most likely candidate and I wil move there first week it does so. For I'd rather not live as a slave in th rest of the union. We currently work the first 5+ months to pay all the taxes levied on us, that is those of us that still work. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/990930.shtml

September 30, 1999 <SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">How can the federal government be prevented from usurping powers that the Constitution doesn’t grant to it? It’s an alarming fact that few Americans ask this question anymore. Our ultimate defense against the federal government is the right of secession. Yes, most people assume that the Civil War settled that. But superior force proves nothing. If there was a right of secession before that war, it should be just as valid now. It wasn’t negated because Northern munitions factories were more efficient than Southern ones.

<SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish” — by force, if necessary — a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes “secession” sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were “granted” and “delegated” by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.

<SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">Even in <CITE>The Federalist,</CITE> the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as “the Confederacy” and “a confederate republic,” as opposed to a single “consolidated” or monolithic state. Members of a “confederacy” are by definition free to withdraw from it.Hamilton and Madison hoped secession would never happen, but they never denied that it was a right and a practical possibility. They envisioned the people taking arms against the federal government if it exceeded its delegated powers or invaded their rights, and they admitted that this would be justified. Secession, including the resort to arms, was the final remedy against tyranny. (This is the real point of the Second Amendment.)

<SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">Strictly speaking, the states would not be “rebelling,” since they were sovereign; in the Framers’ view, a tyrannical government would be rebelling against the states and the people, who by defending themselves would merely exercise the paramount political “principle of self-preservation.”

<SPACER type="horizontal" size="20">The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didn’t have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession. Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid.

[tailfins]

States do not have a right to succeed.

YOU, however, can leave whenever you want to. The sooner the better. I would suggest Saudi Arabia. There are zero liberals there.

Every state should strive to succeed. If they want to secede, that is a different conversation.

[Robert A Whit]

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
No, they were provoked.

How so?

Ans: The invasion by Abe Lincoln! As to seceeding, as a free person, they have the right to remain or abandon a form of government.

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
For those who actually believe in the rights of man, those get it. They realize that those citizens of the South voted to remain in the union or abandon the government they felt no longer represented them.

Man is born free. As I can't make a deal today with the state to force you to live in the town I live in, neither can you force me to remain locked into a government when the majority of my neighbors shun said government. As a group, we will decide.

I know you didn't just drop the universal rights of man into a debate where you're arguing for the Confederate South. The irony is overwhelming. They had a way of life that relied upon human servitude-- that was one of the central causes that precipitated their secession. To play off this "They weren't represented" crap is bogus...and Man is born free... are you kidding me? White Man was born free; other's, well, let the group decide???? That's your answer-- STFU-- human servitude is morally reprehensible. It was the norm back then; so clearly what constitutes rights of man left much to be desired. The South wanted to spread slavery to new territories and the North didn't want that. The tides were changing and the South was desperate. The North just wanted individuals to have a shot at the new lands; not give it to land sheiks and slave plantations. Check out Bleeding Kansas-- that's the South you rally behind.

Ans: You are introducing bogus arguments. Will you please stick to the things Abe Lincoln gave as his reason for his invasion. Thank you.

The group was/is the WHOLE UNION, MANY STATES; the North had the majority. So you say the Southern Citizens want democracy, but only if they can gerrymander themselves into the majority. Maybe the South should have brokered a better deal than 3/5 vote for their slaves then. But ratifier's remorse doesn't get you out of the union. War could have; or by ratification of the Congress and the States, but, as you note

Ans: Do you have any record of Abe Lincoln making those arguments when he planned to invade VA?

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
...the South did not win victory, the tactics used could explain that along with their goals. They did not have the goals of the North. The North intended to conquer yet the South intended to hold and defend. As to assigning right to the event, I side with the South.

The union's primary goal was to preserve the union by whatever means necessary. The South knew they couldn't win through political or legal tactics, so they went to war....and lost having never become an independent nation. So they're just rebels with a cause... separatist apartheid.

Ans: So why did you wait so long to get to the real reason Abe invaded VA? Actually they were a separate nation. No doubt at all.

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
Sadly you are correct that the spoils were lost to the South and that it is the North whose propaganda is now written history.

Oh, don't let the sour grapes get you too bitter-- the South got Plessy v Ferguson as a consolation prize.

Ans. Where have you seen me be bitter? This took place so long ago. i don't live in the South. Time for you to brush up on the declaration of independence.

We can't have it both ways. Fine to bail out on England, not fine to bail out on some form of government you no longer can abide. This nation was founded on the very idea people can choose a form of government and of course may have to shed blood to obtain it.

You are all wound up about slaves for some strange reason.

Why strange?

The Negro was complicit in his own slavery. When one is complicit, one does not reward them for that.

Believe it or not, at that time, slavery was quite common and acceptable.

[logroller]

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/0...-of-secession/

.Do States Have a Right of Secession?
Walter Williams (2002.04.19 ) Politics
Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, “The Real Lincoln,” Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let’s look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Texas leaves the Union I am moving there immediately. Provided that they boot out all the liberals and other assorted characters of low repute.-
Only state that I ever envision would dare try to leave is Texas.. Question is, is it Unconstitutional to do so?-Tyr

The constitution is pretty ingenious; it prescribes a method of adding states, but not removing them. So it's left, then, to states or to the people pursuant to Amendment X. There was a Scotus case following the civil war that ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, citing the articles of confederation and the preamble as reference. But it left open the possibility for states to do so "through revolution, or through consent of the states."-- The people and the states, respectively. So yes, they have the right, but have they the capability? I have the right to make a billion dollars...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/poll...e-right-secede

Poll: 24 Percent of Americans Believe States Have a Right to Secede

By Elizabeth Harrington
June 5, 2012
Subscribe to Elizabeth Harrington's posts






Flag of the Second Vermont Republic secession movement. (Photo courtesy of Vermont Republic)

(CNSNews.com) – Nearly one-quarter of Americans believe that states have the right to secede, according to a recent poll from Rasmussen Reports -- up 10 percentage points in two years.
The latest poll is just one of many that shows that Americans have “serious and growing concern about the federal government,” according to Scott Rasmussen, founder and president of Rasmussen Reports.
According to the phone survey released Sunday, 24 percent of Americans believe that states should be able to withdraw from the United States to form their own country, if they want. Nearly 60 percent (59) of Americans say they don’t believe states have the right to secede, while 16 percent are undecided.
“We do see that people are concerned about the federal government in a variety of ways,” Rasmussen told CNSNews.com. “51 percent believe that it’s a threat to individual liberties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another 4 years of obama tyranny and it 'll be 75% thinking it a right and a blessing too !!-Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/0...-of-secession/

.Do States Have a Right of Secession?
Walter Williams (2002.04.19 ) Politics
Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, “The Real Lincoln,” Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let’s look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Texas leaves the Union I am moving there immediately. Provided that they boot out all the liberals and other assorted characters of low repute.-
Only state that I ever envision would dare try to leave is Texas.. Question is, is it Unconstitutional to do so?-Tyr

If ever you could mention a man that Democrats despise, perhaps more than Grover Norquist, it is Di Lorenzo. His book, HOW CAPITALISM SAVED AMERICA, is a classic but despised by Democrats.

Thomas makes the only correct argument. I have got into lots of trouble with Democrats and some Republicans by calling Abe a thug president.

Thomas lays out his case very well. I get accused of supporting slavery. That is a vile lie when told. I am pro freedom. We keep ignoring that the flag that flew over slavery far longer than any flag is the flag of 1861 for the USA. That flag was for a republic that supported slavery by law. Actual court cases came out in support of slavery. I maintain that it took the South many decades of being kicked around in DC to finally revolt. But they first voted. That to me showed they did it by rule of law. Had some wild eyed Governor of said states did it on his own, no way jose. But the people got involved. I maintain that slavery was always going to vanish in this country. No need to kill off 630,000 humans to collect back the states. Abe was wrong.

[revelarts]

If ever you could mention a man that Democrats despise, perhaps more than Grover Norquist, it is Di Lorenzo. His book, HOW CAPITALISM SAVED AMERICA, is a classic but despised by Democrats.

Thomas makes the only correct argument. I have got into lots of trouble with Democrats and some Republicans by calling Abe a thug president.

Thomas lays out his case very well. I get accused of supporting slavery. That is a vile lie when told. I am pro freedom. We keep ignoring that the flag that flew over slavery far longer than any flag is the flag of 1861 for the USA. That flag was for a republic that supported slavery by law. Actual court cases came out in support of slavery. I maintain that it took the South many decades of being kicked around in DC to finally revolt. But they first voted. That to me showed they did it by rule of law. Had some wild eyed Governor of said states did it on his own, no way jose. But the people got involved. I maintain that slavery was always going to vanish in this country. No need to kill off 630,000 humans to collect back the states. Abe was wrong.

You got any evidence to go along with that belief?
The words and docs of the south say different.

They wouldn't even vote to donate their slaves to the cause of the war much less think of freeing them anytime soon... never really. No plans AT ALL.

Have you read the Confederate Constitution RW?
"....(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due."
Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States....
Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.


Look the ONLY significant differences in the U.S. Constitution and the Confederate Constitution are the provisions on "NEGRO SLAVERY", (not White slavery, or Indian slavery or indentured servitude BTW).

RW you need to rethink your position, whatever books you've read seemed to have skipped some basic points.

When Jefferson Davis Left the U.S. congress he gave speech that 1st sets forth the idea that it's LEGAL for states to secede THEN he tells WHY Mississippi and the others are seceding.

"...it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us -- which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal,..."

Horror of horrors they heard that all men might mean ALL men! And Voted all legal and orderly like to make sure the idea didn't infect them.

Davis makes it PAINFULLY clear that, not only Mississippi but, the south believed that Negro slavery was a right that should be maintained even at the cost of secession.
No other reasons are given. NONE.

You can maintain what you want but there's no doubt that the fact is slavery was THE issue that the civil war turned on. Other issues notwithstanding. And there were No plans for confederate emancipation on the horizon.

[logroller]

Excellent post rev--indubitably, slavery was at the heart of secession. It did, however play a lesser role in the ensuing Civil War, at least initially. The division over the slavery issue riddled the political parties of their time; causing several, notably the whigs and freesoilers(?) to collapse altogether. The dems split north and south; leaving the radical republicans to capture control of House, Senate and Presidency. And with the lattermost, the election of Lincoln to the Presidency, secession was seen as the only alternative to preserving the southern way of life, which included slavery.

One passage of your's I would like to draw attention to: the mentioning of territory and interstate immunities (travel, property etc). That is a crucial aspect of the slavery dispute.

Tobacco and, especially, cotton had depleted much of the south's arable land; as such, expansion into new territories became necessary. Vast tracts of newly acquired territory in the early 19th century provided a heyday for new settlements. The south's plantation style farming, replete with slavery, was at odds with the homesteading style of subsistence agriculture. Think big business vs small business-- the nuances are quite similar. The southern plantation owner's, with their accumulated wealth, sought to vest their interests in the most profitable of these newly acquired lands. Unfortunately, a number of existing settlers weren't amicable to the southern way of life with its big plantations and slavery, whilst settlers were confined to the mediocre land and , and disputes gave way to violent and undemocratic behavior. Google Bleeding Kansas. The conflicting ways of life were as much a part of objection as slavery, and it was in the border states that these differences were of ripe concern. Consider rather you would support the union with armed secessionists running the town-- understandably, many were on the fence.

In fact, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to those four border states, nor any of the states which hadn't seceded. For the proclamation was done via Lincoln's capacity as CIC, not as POTUS. An executive order freeing slaves within the Union states would have surely garnered constitutional objection. It wasn't until the passage of the 13th Amendment that abolition was realized. The emancipation wasn't so much a wise political move but, rather, a military one-- they needed fresh troops, and newly freedmen jumped at the chance as the Union advanced.