Secession - A Peculiar Concept
by Scott T. Whiteman, Esq.
If you’ve been reading the papers, you might come to the conclusion that it was 1859 secession is the topic du jour. After the November U.S. elections, the “blue” states had begun to bandy about the notion that perhaps they ought to secede from the “red” states. I must admit, when I saw the blue vs. red breakdown in 2000, in addition to the nearly 50/50 split in the popular vote that perhaps secession would be discussed. After the most recent election, Larry O’Donnell on The McLaughlin Group suggested the topic, it has been written about in The Washington Times, The Boston Globe, The New York Times as well as many other opinion journals. Lawyers are even weighing in on the Constitutionality of the option.
Unsatisfied with our North American squabble, Asia has seemed to chime in on the conversation. Taiwan, seeking to have free government by the consent of the Taiwanese, a true “American” concept, might consider secession from China in fact the Mainland has already promised war if articles of secession are written. Attempting to stop such articles from being drafted, China is working on an Anti-Secession Law.
How utterly silly, frankly. It is reminiscent of the post WWI measures to outlaw war. We must realise that passing legislation is nothing more, ever, than a paper tiger. Firstly, if there is no intention to enforce a law, such as with America’s immigration policy, no law will be effective. Secondly, as far as some fundamental rights or laws of nature go, such as the right of secession, some laws are void ab intitio, or on their face unlawful. It is as absurd to pass a law declaring tooth decay eradicated as it would be to declare secession illegal law cannot prevent such things.
It is deniable by only the hardest headed American that our independence stemmed from an act of secession from England in 1776 under the style THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This act of secession was opposed by England, and a war was waged against the thirteen colonies until 1783 when “His Britannic Majesty” signed the TREATY OF PARIS acknowledging the independence of the thirteen named British colonies in North America. Take notice that the independence of the colonies was effectuated on July 4, 1776, hence the united States dating their official documents and treaties from their dates of independence from Brittan the truth of that fact is not diminished by a King who did not recognise it for more than seven years.
In 1777, THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND PERPETUAL UNION were ratified, establishing a “perpetual union” between the thirteen States and did not permit any alteration to the Charter absent unanimous consent of all States involved (Article XIII). It would seem, then, that when our Founders gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, in secret, to establish a “more perfect union” between the States, even that was an act of secession and nullification. The twelve states signing the CONSTITUTION seceded from the old Union and nullified the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION without the consent of Rhode Island. They weren’t about to let a procedural law, Article XIII of the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, prohibit them from seizing a substantive right, to secure a more perfect government in America.
Secession of one state from others was considered again in 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written and two years after it was ratified by the ninth State, making it effective. A group of Pennsylvanians, including Benjamin Franklin, sought abolition of the New England slave trade. Two Southern states indicated that they would seceded if the relief sought were granted.
In 1804, New England and New York opposed the Republican practices of President Jefferson and the waning influence of the Federalists after John Adams’ and contemplated secession. Again in 1815, New Englanders seriously contemplated secession due to their opposition to the War of 1812. In the first 25 years of our Republic, the right of secession was an established American tradition.
However, rather than engage in a evidentiary demonstration on why secession is a Constitutional right based upon a demonstration that the Constitution did not become effective upon a State unless it consented thereto, that consent of any endeavour, naturally can be undone, &c., I will assume the opponent’s arguments as given 1. Secession is prohibited Constitutionally, but if not Constitutionally, 2. at least the question was settled in 1865 at the conclusion of the War for Southern Independence, what most refer to as “The Civil War.”
First, secession is a peculiar concept in a free government, the members are not seeking it in a tyrannical government, the members are not permitted it. Secession from despotism is not a civil right, it is a fundamental, God-given right and thus cannot justly be suppressed by the King nor alienated by the People. Regardless of whether it is a recognised procedural right, secession is absolutely a substantive right that cannot be denied without offending the God who institutes governments for the maintenance of His people. Thus, with or without a declaration in support of secession in the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, or the BURGER KING BILL OF RIGHTS, the right to secede from a despotism is absolute. That right may be suppressed by the powers that be, as England suppressed that right to the colonies in 1776, or denied by the People as has occurred in America since 1861, but it is not within the rightful powers given by God to a civil government or the People to alienate it.
Secondly, the First and Second Wars for Independence in America demonstrates one fundamental maxim: War settles nothing it merely neutralizes the defeated. After the TREATY OF PARIS, England probably still had the military power to renege the Treaty and unleash a completely new set of war-time evils upon the fledgling united States, but it did not. Not long after Appomattox, “The South Will Rise Again” was spoken (and some of us think the “Old North” should too). The point is that nothing is settled by war, and certainly God-given rights are not established or disestablished at the passage of a human law or the point of a gun. I do not mean, however, that a war or threat of war might not serve to chill an attempt for liberty, in this case by the Taiwanese from despotic China.
Have we forgotten that whenever governments become destructive toward the ends for which God institutes them, it is the right, “it is the duty” according to our DECLARATION, to alter or abolish that government? I trust that by “whenever,” Jefferson considered that such occasion might occur again in America when a despotic government might exist. Since all civil governments are but the subject provinces of the Almighty God for the establishment and enactment of His Laws, secession from a despotic government is one means to arrest evil in an area of governance.
In closing, I want to mollify the concerns some might have I am writing about secession from despotism. There is no right to secede from a just civil government to do evil. A State has responsibilities to God for the maintenance of His people, and if it is not able to perform those responsibilities because of a tyrannical federal head, it is incumbent upon it, the State, to interpose to arrest the evil. If interposition does not work, secession is the final alternative, and the King has no legal right to prevent it but fundamental rights and justice rarely stop a “Rule of Law” tyrant who demands a strict adherence to the procedural laws that are set up for him against the Lord and His anointed.
Discuss this article
