Secession and the Constitution

[Henry Moon]

I thought I'd pick up my stick here and continue beating this dead horse once again. Slavery was protected where it existed under the Constitution. Secession was not protected. The Union is what it says...a Union of states. It is not just a simple voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure, on a whim, by any of the contracting parties. "We the People" as the Constitution begins means that the people adopted this document to form " a more perfect union. A more perfect union than had existed under the initial Articles of Confederation, which also stated that "the union shall be perpetual." That means forever, ongoing, not stopping, not dissolving, breaking apart. The framers of the national government never intended to implant in the Constitution the seeds of its own destruction, or undoing, its own demise.

State sovereignty is not and never was superior to national sovereignty. The Constitution endowed the National government with the highest attributes and responsibilities of sovereignty, such as national defense, foreign policy, the regulation of foreign and interstate commerce, national currency.  The Constitution stated that it, and the laws of the US are the supreme law of the land; anything in state constitutions or state laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

If secession was legitimate, according to President Buchanan in his farewell speech to Congress, the Union would become "a rope of sand" and "our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into [just] as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics. By such a dreaded catastrophe the hopes of the friends of freedom throughout the world would be destroyed. Our example for more than eighty years would not only be lost, but it would be quoted as a conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government."

Lincoln said, "The Union is older than any of the States, and in fact, it created them as States. The Declaration of Independence transformed the 'United Colonies' into the United States; without this union then, there would never have been any 'free and independent states.' Having never been States, either in substance, or in name, outside the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of 'States rights' asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Perpetuity was the fundamental law of all national governments. No government ever had provision in its organic law for its own termination. No state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union. They can only do so against law, and by revolution."


 "The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, if it was intended to be broken up by every member of the [Union] at will...It is idle to talk of secession." - Robert E. Lee, January, 1861



Terry

[Belle]

"We the People" as the Constitution begins means that the people adopted this document to form " a more perfect union. A more perfect union than had existed under the initial Articles of Confederation, which also stated that "the union shall be perpetual." That means forever, ongoing, not stopping, not dissolving, breaking apart. The framers of the national government never intended to implant in the Constitution the seeds of its own destruction, or undoing, its own demise.

My Yankee Friend:

I think there's a world of difference between "more perfect" and "perpetual"...do you see them as meaning the same thing?  I also find the concept of anything as being "perpetual" to be little more than an abstract ideal. 

In the words of Mr. Madison in 1787:

"If we consider the federal union as analogous to the fundamental compact by which individuals compose our society, and which must in its theoretic orgin at least, have been the unanimous act of the component members, it can not be said that no dissolution of the compact can be effected without unanimous consent. A breach of the fundamental principles of the compact by a part of the Society would certainly absolve the other part from their obligations to it."

I believe the Constitution was framed with a "contract mentality" and a contract can most certainly be breached.

Do you think the original colonies would have signed up to be part of a compact that clearly stated: If you vote to ratify the constitution and you later try to leave no matter the grievance; we will destroy your homes and property, suppress your right to self government; and kill your men?
 
If the 'Union is older than any of the States,' where exactly does the spirit/will of the people fit in?  Doesn't this iron determination to hang onto eleven states when even without the South the United States would still have been the envy of the rest of the world; strike you as somewhat greedy?  An increasing population, boatloads of immigrants arriving every day, and a dynamic, expanding economy were viewed by every other nation with wide-eyed envy.

"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, if it was intended to be broken up by every member of the [Union] at will...It is idle to talk of secession." - Robert E. Lee, January, 1861

And yet Mr. Lee's true loyalties lay in the notion that a country held together at the point of a bayonet held no attraction for him; as did many others.

Belle~

[Henry Moon]

by Belle: I think there's a world of difference between "more perfect" and "perpetual"...do you see them as meaning the same thing?  I also find the concept of anything as being "perpetual" to be little more than an abstract ideal. 

Belle, I think it's pretty clear what is meant here with "a more perfect Union" and the Union is "perpetual". The founding fathers thought they could build upon the Articles that were "perpetual", and make the country even yet "a more perfect Union", words from the Constitution. What was done with the Articles of Confederation could be improved upon in the Constitution, forming "a more perfect Union." In other words...no splitting up, no secession, no tearing apart, but a perpetual and more perfect Union of States.

Do you think the original colonies would have signed up to be part of a compact that clearly stated: If you vote to ratify the constitution and you later try to leave no matter the grievance; we will destroy your homes and property, suppress your right to self government; and kill your men?
 

Belle, it was their explicit consent and desire to be part of this Union of States and they joined willingly. And they were made part of this " more perfect Union", as the Constitution puts it.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for any state to leave the Union. Where would the secession stop? What makes you think that after the 11 Confederate states seceeded, more states would not try the same thing? Maybe parts of the original Confederacy would want to separate and form a new Confederacy? What happened to the Union of States? Destruction. The Union dissolves and is no more.

And I agree with Buchanan and Lincoln when they said that no government would write into its own Constitution the seeds for its own destruction. That doesn't make sense, and I just can't buy into the suggestion that the Founding Fathers would make such a bone-headed move.

If the 'Union is older than any of the States,' where exactly does the spirit/will of the people fit in?  Doesn't this iron determination to hang onto eleven states when even without the South the United States would still have been the envy of the rest of the world; strike you as somewhat greedy?

Wasn't there a vote of some kind to enter into the Union? What about the will of the people then?  All this "iron determination" tells me, is that Lincoln was determined to hold fast to the Founding Fathers conception of this nation as a Union of States, a democratic model for the world barely 85 years old, and not let it slip away, not on his watch. As he put it, "the tug has to come, so let it come now."   

Thanks, Belle

Terry
 

 

[Belle]

Belle, I think it's pretty clear what is meant here with "a more perfect Union" and the Union is "perpetual". The founding fathers thought they could build upon the Articles that were "perpetual", and make the country even yet "a more perfect Union", words from the Constitution. What was done with the Articles of Confederation could be improved upon in the Constitution, forming "a more perfect Union." In other words...no splitting up, no secession, no tearing apart, but a perpetual and more perfect Union of States.

Terry:

As always...a pleasure.  Thank you for your thoughts and I have a few more for your consideration.

The phrase "a more perfect Union" is not clear to me at all - it could mean almost anything, and is open to interpretation and many variables.  Does "a more perfect Union" mean that you keep steamrolling across the prairies, snatching land along the way in order to make the Union 'more vast, powerful, and perfect?'  I'm inclined to believe that the Founding Father's intent of a 'more perfect Union' took into consideration the rights and liberties of all people, at any time; and that's why the Constitution was left silent on the issue of secession.

Belle, it was their explicit consent and desire to be part of this Union of States and they joined willingly. And they were made part of this " more perfect Union", as the Constitution puts it.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for any state to leave the Union. Where would the secession stop? What makes you think that after the 11 Confederate states seceeded, more states would not try the same thing? Maybe parts of the original Confederacy would want to separate and form a new Confederacy? What happened to the Union of States? Destruction. The Union dissolves and is no more.

I'd be well pleased if you could point me to anything in the Constitution that forbids secession.  There was no historical evidence to suggest that the United States would have dismantled itself had the Southern states been allowed to peacefully withdraw from the Union.

And I agree with Buchanan and Lincoln when they said that no government would write into its own Constitution the seeds for its own destruction. That doesn't make sense, and I just can't buy into the suggestion that the Founding Fathers would make such a bone-headed move.

Again, I don't see secession as coming even close to dismantling the U.S. government.  There is a huge difference between 'dismantling a nation' and merely reducing its size.  A group of people started out with the same interests but over time that changed, and the differences between those two groups of people became blatantly obvious; to the point where it was hard to believe that the United States had ever been one nation.  And forcing the smaller group of people to stay in a 'compact' they no longer wished to be part of, is little more than saying; "our business interests are much more important than the autonomy of Southern people."

Wasn't there a vote of some kind to enter into the Union? What about the will of the people then?  All this "iron determination" tells me, is that Lincoln was determined to hold fast to the Founding Fathers conception of this nation as a Union of States, a democratic model for the world barely 85 years old, and not let it slip away, not on his watch. As he put it, "the tug has to come, so let it come now."

   

Well, so much for the concept of liberty for all, and the right to change and grow economically, politically, and socially;  which the two sections most certainly did.  Yes, Mr. Lincoln was determined to hold onto the Union...at any cost.

Thanks Terry.

Belle~
 

[Henry Moon]

The phrase "a more perfect Union" is not clear to me at all - it could mean almost anything, and is open to interpretation and many variables

. 

Hi Belle. This phrase "a more perfect Union" was only used in the Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation. It was used by the framers to let the citizens know that this document, the Constitution, was a much more refined, thought-out, comprehensive work, than any previous document, and to advise them that things could and would be done better, managed with better ideas in the arenas of government, representation, citizen participation, that would indeed produce the outcome of a more perfect Union.

I'm inclined to believe that the Founding Father's intent of a 'more perfect Union' took into consideration the rights and liberties of all people, at any time; and that's why the Constitution was left silent on the issue of secession.

I tend to agree with you here that the intent was to make things better in this final document, the Constitution... tweaking it if you will.  However it's hard for me to believe that the issue of secession was left out of the Constitution by the Fathers, with the hopes that someday someone would indeed break up the Union to make it yet even "more perfect".   

I'd be well pleased if you could point me to anything in the Constitution that forbids secession.

In the absence of anything forbidding secession, and the absence of anything encouraging or allowing secession, in the US Constitution, I come to the conclusion based on the reason the Constitution was drafted in the first place, that it was designed to guide the young Union through the rough spots that were surely to come, including attempts to disssolve it.  That is how I read it Belle. Of course, you have the right to your own interpretation which I respect fully, though I may not agree with it.

There was no historical evidence to suggest that the United States would have dismantled itself had the Southern states been allowed to peacefully withdraw from the Union.

We'll never know because it had never been tried before. There was no historical precedent on this issue, so secession was a thorn in everybody's butt, North and South, and each side in the beginning, hoped for the best, but prepared for the absolute worst. Unfortunately the latter is what both sides ended up with.

Well, so much for the concept of liberty for all, and the right to change and grow economically, politically, and socially;  which the two sections most certainly did.  Yes, Mr. Lincoln was determined to hold onto the Union...at any cost.

That was Lincoln's sole purpose, his job, his Constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend. In the end, Belle, there was liberty for all, the slaves included, and the Union held together. You say it was for money's sake, solely for the crass, unmitigated financial gain that would benefit only the North. I disagree with that and think that Lincoln had loftier ideals in mind which guided him in his efforts to preserve the Union.


Thank you for your probing questions, assertions, conclusions.  Always a pleasure debating with you, Belle, although I sometimes groan when I see you've responded to something I've posted...because I know I've got my work cut out for me, and I have to look for my thinking cap once again, and clear whatever vestiges of fog and cobwebs that might still be lingering in the labyrinths and tunnels of my brain, since my most recent nap.

 Looking forward to your reply, Belle, whenever that might be...no hurry...please take your time...please. Thanksgiving actually would work pretty well for me.   


Terry Wise
Evansville, Indiana (on the Mason-Dixon line)




 

[Belle]

Well Terry, I'm officially on holidays so you'll be 'groan free' for at least a week.

Belle~

[hanny]

The phrase "a more perfect Union" is not clear to me at all - it could mean almost anything, and is open to interpretation and many variables.


Madison explains this as the placeing of sovrienty where it belongs, with the people in convention, not the state legisltures who as the agent of the people use as there delegated representative, in the old AOC, the state legilstures misused this delgated authority and denied the people of their sttste the use of a sovrieng atributes, RI citizens were denied the right to vote on joining the new Union till the legilsture tenure ended, because they were elected for term and did not want to join, but under the new Constion, it was more perfect, because such a right was placed correctly where it belongs, with the people of the state in convention.

[ole]

Gosh darn, Hanny. Your spelling over here is as bad as it is over there. Are your fingiers starting to work better? Many thanks for your service.

ole

[Grizs50]

I thought I'd pick up my stick here and continue beating this dead horse once again. Slavery was protected where it existed under the Constitution. Secession was not protected. The Union is what it says...a Union of states. It is not just a simple voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure, on a whim, by any of the contracting parties. "We the People" as the Constitution begins means that the people adopted this document to form " a more perfect union.

Your statement shoots your own argument in the foot, WE THE PEOPLE, Have the right to do anything, WE THE PEOPLE agree too, as long as it doesn't interfere with personal rights. The rights(BILL OF RIGHTS) are given to us (WE THE PEOPLE) in order to protect us from government, of the People, for the People and by the People.

If this is not so, then we do not live in the United States, we live in a police state where the government owns us, not the other way round.

WE THE PEOPLE, can choose to leave these United States, which many did in 1861-65, and were attacked for it( My home state was attacked before it succeeded), in effect killing the Union and forcing (WE THE PEOPLE) against their will, into a union that hated them. Because of course the government knew what was best for the Missiourians who lived here, Never mind they were part of WE THE PEOPLE, the federal government knew better.

It was not taken lightly or on a whim, there were many families broken up including my own because they where not sure which side was going to win.

Your whole argument is designed to lift yourself by pushing others down, you try to cram us in a box, the racist box. I am as racist as you are.

WE THE PEOPLE, firing on each other is not a good thing, there was not world domination in the mind of the southern people, only to be left alone and not to be taxed to death, Hmm I do remember a certain group of folks in Boston wanting the very same thing.

If you choose to be owned by the government you will be taken care of for awhile, and that is your call, then you will be milked like a cow, stripped of your rights and taxed to death.  I choose Freedom, not the freedom the government offers, the Freedom that I take.

THE FREEDOM Granted to me by WE THE PEOPLE!!!

I choose FREEDOM!!!!! From people like you, who gave your freedom away for safety. Who can't stand it when an individual takes a stand. I Choose FREEDOM to stand up for myself, my family and my friends.

[Johan Steele]

The only problem is that no one was being taxed to death.  Missouri provided quite a few troops for the Union and most of the letters I've read of Missouri men speak of freedom and fighting treason...

It's become popular for some to claim the US as a police state, that is only possible if one is ignorant of the reality of a police state.  The US isn't now and never has been.  You have the freedom to do as you wish, all that you mentioned in fact because you live in the US.  The CS would not and was not so gracious.