Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Here is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Now, it has been claimed, repeatedly, that this amendment contains some sort of "Get Out Of The Union FREE!" card, that the concept of unilateral secession is somewhere contained in those 28 words.
Does this amendment somehow reserve the right of secession to the states?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
A sovereign state (as in nation-state) can end (honestly or otherwise) an alliance, a treaty, a pact, or any other commitment.
But nothing in those twenty-eight words indicates that the United States is merely an alliance of (nation) states, all working together because they believe it is in their own best interests, but fully independent and capable of acting as their interests see fit...by forming treaties with other nations independent of the American union on the whole, by waging war, by collecting taxes, or any of the other activities that nations do.
And without such an indication that the union is such a loose confederation, but in fact that it "one nation under God"...
There can be no "right" of secession. The states are united together as one nation, not as a league or pact or confederation or alliance of sovereign republics.
__________________ Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee
The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just. - Abraham Lincoln
Last edited by Elennsar; 08-19-2008 at 05:04 AM.
Reason: change to wording for clarity
I have a period reply to the above question I wish to submit:
Charles Sumner's Resolution's on the Theory of Secession and Reconstruction (1862).
"Resolutions declaratory of the relations between the United States and the territory once occupied by certain states, and now usurped by pretended governments, without constitutional or legal right.
Whereas certain States, rightfully belonging to the Union of the United States, have through their respective governments wickedly undertaken to abjure all those duties by which their connection with the Union was maintained; to renounce all allegiance to the Constitution; to levy war upon the national Government; and, for the consummation of this treason, have unconstitutionally and unlawfully confederated together, with the declared purpose of putting an end by force to the supremacy of the Constitution within their respective limits; and whereas this condition of insurrection, organized by pretended governments, openly exists in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia, except in Eastern Tennessee and Western Virginia, and has been declared by the President of the United States, in a proclamation duly made in conformity with an act of Congress, to exist throughout this territory, with the exceptions already named; and whereas the extensive territory thus usurped by these pretended governments and organized into a hostile confederation, belongs to the United States, as an inseparable part thereof, under the sanctions of the Constitution, to be held in trust for the inhabitants in the present and future generations, and is so completely interlinked with the Union that it is forever dependent thereon; and whereas the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, cannot be displaced in its rightful operation within this territory, but must ever continue to be the supreme law thereof, notwithstanding of the doings of any pretended governments acting singly or in confederation, in order to put an end to its supremacy: Therefore -
Resolved, That any vote of secession or other act by which any State may undertake to put an end to the supremacy of the Constitution within its territory is inoperative and void against the Constitution, and when sustained by force it becomes a practical abdication by the State of all rights under the Constitution, while the treason which it involves still further works an instant forfeiture of all those functions and powers essential to the continued existence of the State as a body politic, so that from that time forward the territory falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress as other territory, and the State being, according to the language of the law, felo-de-se, ceases to exist.
That any comination of men assuming to act in the place of such State, attempting to ensnare or coerce the inhabitants thereof into a confederation hostile to the Union is rebellious, treasonable, and destitute of all moral authority; and that such combination is a usurpation incapable of any constitutional existence and utterly lawless, so that every thing dependent upon it is without constitutional or legal support.
That the termination of a State under the Constitution necessarily causes the termination of those peculiar local institutions which, having no origin in the Constitution or in those natural rights which exist independent of the Constitution, are upheld by the sole and exclusive authority of the State.
That slavery, being a peculiar local institution, derived from local laws, without any origin in the Constitution or natural rights, is upheld by the sole and exclusive authority of the State, and must therefore cease to exist legally or constitutionally when the State on which it depends no longer exists; for the incident cannot survive the principal.
That in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction over the territory once occupied by the States, it is the duty of the Congress to see that the supremacy of the Constitution is maintained in its essential principles, so that everywhere in this extensive territory slavery shall cease to exist practically, as it has already ceased to exist constitutionally or legally.
That any recognition of slavery in such territory, or any surrender of slaves under the pretended laws of the extinct States by any officer of the United States, civil or military, is a recognition of the pretended governments, to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of Congress under the Constitution, and is in the nature of aid and comfort to the rebellion that has been organized.
That any such recognition of slavery or surrender of pretended slaves, besides being a recognition of the pretended governments, giving them aid and comfort, is a denial of the rights of persons who, by the extinction of the States, have become free, so that under the Constitution, they cannot again be enslaved.
That allegiance from the inhabitant and protection from the Government are corresponding obligations, dependent upon each other, so that while the allegiance of every inhabitant of this territory, without distinction of color or class, is due to the United States, and cannot in anyway be defeated by the action of any pretended Government, or by any pretence of property or claim to service, the corresponding obligation of protection is at the same time due by the United States to every such inhabitant, without distinction of color or class; and it follows that inhabitants held as slaves, whose paramount allegiance is due to the United States, may justly look to the national Government for protection.
That duty directly cast upon Congress by the extinction of the States is reinforced by the positive prohibition of the Constitution that "no State shall enter into any confederation," or "without the consent of Congress keep troops or ships-of-war in time of peace, or enter into any agreement or compact with another State," or "grant letters of marque and reprisal," or "coin money," or "emit bills of credit," or "without the consent of Congress lay any duties on imports or exports," all of which have been done by these pretended governments, and also by the positive injunction of the Constitution, addressed to the nation, that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government;" and that in pursuance of this duty cast upon Congress, and further enjoined by the Constitution, Congress will assume complete jurisdiction of such vacated territory where such unconstitutional and illegal things have been attempted, and will proceed to establish therein republican forms of government under the Constitution; and in the execution of this trust will provide careful for the protection of all the inhabitants thereof, for the security of families, the organization of labor, the encouragement of industry, and the welfare of society, and will in every way discharge the duties of a just, merciful, and paternal Government."
Now, picking through some of the above resolutions, I begin to suspect that Congress (or at least Charles Sumner) did not think that somewhere within the US Constitution that the supreme law of the land could be short-circuited by a part of that same document.
I await further comments.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
To assume that the 10th amendment reserves to the states the power of secession, one must first assume that secession is a power recognized by any government, anywhere.
And I notice in discussion of this amendment, secession is variously described as a "right" as well as a "power." Isn't there a difference?
Excellent posts, Elennsar and unionblue. Thank you.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The premise that the 10th amendment contains a right for states to secede is based on an invalid assumption. The assumption is that the right to secede is a power and since it is not expressly granted to the United States, it is reserved to the states. First, how would the power to secede even be granted to the United States? Could it secede from itself? You end up with logical tautology.
But let us assume that the right to secede is a power which could have been delegated to the United States. Why must we assume that if it was not delegated to the United States that it was reserved by the states? Note that the amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Note "or the people". Since the Constitution is created by "We the People", is it not logical that the right to dissolve government is held by the people and not the states? Such a reading is much more in line with the thinking of the period - the natural right of revolution and all that. Those who argue that the states "retained" the right to secede operate from the initial false premise that the states created the Constitution. It was the people, the people of the United States acting in concert, that created the United States and it would take the action of the people, acting in concert, to dissolve the government.
Those who want to find a right to secede in the Constitution have looked in vain for such a right and have not found it. They have therefore focused on the 10th Amendment. Since the Bill of Rights were not ratified until after the creation of the government under the Constitution, does that mean that there wasn't a right to secede for the first two and a half years and then suddenly, with the passage of the 10th Amendment the right was inserted into the Constitution? I think not.
"The 10th Amendment allows secession" argument is a red herring.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
A sovereign state (as in nation-state) can end (honestly or otherwise) an alliance, a treaty, a pact, or any other commitment.
But nothing in those twenty-eight words indicates that the United States is merely an alliance of (nation) states, all working together because they believe it is in their own best interests, but fully independent and capable of acting as their interests see fit...by forming treaties with other nations independent of the American union on the whole, by waging war, by collecting taxes, or any of the other activities that nations do.
And without such an indication that the union is such a loose confederation, but in fact that it "one nation under God"...
There can be no "right" of secession. The states are united together as one nation, not as a league or pact or confederation or alliance of sovereign republics.
Show me a law that says secession is illegal. That means if it ain't in the Constitution it is left to the states. And if it had been important, WHY wasn't it put in the Constitution?
I have a period reply to the above question I wish to submit:
Charles Sumner's Resolution's on the Theory of Secession and Reconstruction (1862).
"Resolutions declaratory of the relations between the United States and the territory once occupied by certain states, and now usurped by pretended governments, without constitutional or legal right.
Whereas certain States, rightfully belonging to the Union of the United States, have through their respective governments wickedly undertaken to abjure all those duties by which their connection with the Union was maintained; to renounce all allegiance to the Constitution; to levy war upon the national Government; and, for the consummation of this treason, have unconstitutionally and unlawfully confederated together, with the declared purpose of putting an end by force to the supremacy of the Constitution within their respective limits; and whereas this condition of insurrection, organized by pretended governments, openly exists in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia, except in Eastern Tennessee and Western Virginia, and has been declared by the President of the United States, in a proclamation duly made in conformity with an act of Congress, to exist throughout this territory, with the exceptions already named; and whereas the extensive territory thus usurped by these pretended governments and organized into a hostile confederation, belongs to the United States, as an inseparable part thereof, under the sanctions of the Constitution, to be held in trust for the inhabitants in the present and future generations, and is so completely interlinked with the Union that it is forever dependent thereon; and whereas the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, cannot be displaced in its rightful operation within this territory, but must ever continue to be the supreme law thereof, notwithstanding of the doings of any pretended governments acting singly or in confederation, in order to put an end to its supremacy: Therefore -
Resolved, That any vote of secession or other act by which any State may undertake to put an end to the supremacy of the Constitution within its territory is inoperative and void against the Constitution, and when sustained by force it becomes a practical abdication by the State of all rights under the Constitution, while the treason which it involves still further works an instant forfeiture of all those functions and powers essential to the continued existence of the State as a body politic, so that from that time forward the territory falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress as other territory, and the State being, according to the language of the law, felo-de-se, ceases to exist.
That any comination of men assuming to act in the place of such State, attempting to ensnare or coerce the inhabitants thereof into a confederation hostile to the Union is rebellious, treasonable, and destitute of all moral authority; and that such combination is a usurpation incapable of any constitutional existence and utterly lawless, so that every thing dependent upon it is without constitutional or legal support.
That the termination of a State under the Constitution necessarily causes the termination of those peculiar local institutions which, having no origin in the Constitution or in those natural rights which exist independent of the Constitution, are upheld by the sole and exclusive authority of the State.
That slavery, being a peculiar local institution, derived from local laws, without any origin in the Constitution or natural rights, is upheld by the sole and exclusive authority of the State, and must therefore cease to exist legally or constitutionally when the State on which it depends no longer exists; for the incident cannot survive the principal.
That in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction over the territory once occupied by the States, it is the duty of the Congress to see that the supremacy of the Constitution is maintained in its essential principles, so that everywhere in this extensive territory slavery shall cease to exist practically, as it has already ceased to exist constitutionally or legally.
That any recognition of slavery in such territory, or any surrender of slaves under the pretended laws of the extinct States by any officer of the United States, civil or military, is a recognition of the pretended governments, to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of Congress under the Constitution, and is in the nature of aid and comfort to the rebellion that has been organized.
That any such recognition of slavery or surrender of pretended slaves, besides being a recognition of the pretended governments, giving them aid and comfort, is a denial of the rights of persons who, by the extinction of the States, have become free, so that under the Constitution, they cannot again be enslaved.
That allegiance from the inhabitant and protection from the Government are corresponding obligations, dependent upon each other, so that while the allegiance of every inhabitant of this territory, without distinction of color or class, is due to the United States, and cannot in anyway be defeated by the action of any pretended Government, or by any pretence of property or claim to service, the corresponding obligation of protection is at the same time due by the United States to every such inhabitant, without distinction of color or class; and it follows that inhabitants held as slaves, whose paramount allegiance is due to the United States, may justly look to the national Government for protection.
That duty directly cast upon Congress by the extinction of the States is reinforced by the positive prohibition of the Constitution that "no State shall enter into any confederation," or "without the consent of Congress keep troops or ships-of-war in time of peace, or enter into any agreement or compact with another State," or "grant letters of marque and reprisal," or "coin money," or "emit bills of credit," or "without the consent of Congress lay any duties on imports or exports," all of which have been done by these pretended governments, and also by the positive injunction of the Constitution, addressed to the nation, that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government;" and that in pursuance of this duty cast upon Congress, and further enjoined by the Constitution, Congress will assume complete jurisdiction of such vacated territory where such unconstitutional and illegal things have been attempted, and will proceed to establish therein republican forms of government under the Constitution; and in the execution of this trust will provide careful for the protection of all the inhabitants thereof, for the security of families, the organization of labor, the encouragement of industry, and the welfare of society, and will in every way discharge the duties of a just, merciful, and paternal Government."
Now, picking through some of the above resolutions, I begin to suspect that Congress (or at least Charles Sumner) did not think that somewhere within the US Constitution that the supreme law of the land could be short-circuited by a part of that same document.
I await further comments.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
If all these folks were powerful politicians and had a strong belief on something, then WHY wasn't secession put into law?
The premise that the 10th amendment contains a right for states to secede is based on an invalid assumption. The assumption is that the right to secede is a power and since it is not expressly granted to the United States, it is reserved to the states. First, how would the power to secede even be granted to the United States? Could it secede from itself? You end up with logical tautology.
But let us assume that the right to secede is a power which could have been delegated to the United States. Why must we assume that if it was not delegated to the United States that it was reserved by the states? Note that the amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Note "or the people". Since the Constitution is created by "We the People", is it not logical that the right to dissolve government is held by the people and not the states? Such a reading is much more in line with the thinking of the period - the natural right of revolution and all that. Those who argue that the states "retained" the right to secede operate from the initial false premise that the states created the Constitution. It was the people, the people of the United States acting in concert, that created the United States and it would take the action of the people, acting in concert, to dissolve the government.
Those who want to find a right to secede in the Constitution have looked in vain for such a right and have not found it. They have therefore focused on the 10th Amendment. Since the Bill of Rights were not ratified until after the creation of the government under the Constitution, does that mean that there wasn't a right to secede for the first two and a half years and then suddenly, with the passage of the 10th Amendment the right was inserted into the Constitution? I think not.
"The 10th Amendment allows secession" argument is a red herring.
Perhaps you can be so kind as to show me the LAW that says secession is illegal? If there is no law in the Constitution to that affect then the 10th amendment covers it.
Here is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Now, it has been claimed, repeatedly, that this amendment contains some sort of "Get Out Of The Union FREE!" card, that the concept of unilateral secession is somewhere contained in those 28 words.
Does this amendment somehow reserve the right of secession to the states?
Sincerely,
Unionblue
It doesn't, if we interpret Judge Marshall, it is clear that the power to make the supreme law of the land is expressly delegated to the Federal Government. That the Federal Government is an institution with limited powers (note how the secessionists turn this into a government with 'limited power') but that within that sphere, the power is supreme. "If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this-that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action."
Perhaps you can be so kind as to show me the LAW that says secession is illegal? If there is no law in the Constitution to that affect then the 10th amendment covers it.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
10th Amendment: Get Out of the Union Free Card? 
Linear Mode
