Article IV, Section 5. Secession from the Union by a State Shall be Prohibited and Met by Force

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Mad Mac

Private
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
28
Of course, there was no Section 5 in Article IV, and for good reason.
No State would have ratified the Constitution
if the Constitution had prohibited the possibility of secession
and stated that secession would be stopped by military force.

Section 3 is clear about the conditions and method for a State to be admitted.
The founding fathers could have just as easily addressed secession.
However, they had just fought a war of independence against tyranny.
To deny the possibility of independence to the new States in the future would have been absurd.
The right to secede was a given, ranking with life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,535
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Of course, there was no Section 5 in Article IV, and for good reason.
No State would have ratified the Constitution
if the Constitution had prohibited the possibility of secession
and stated that secession would be stopped by military force.

Section 3 is clear about the conditions and method for a State to be admitted.
The founding fathers could have just as easily addressed secession.
However, they had just fought a war of independence against tyranny.
To deny the possibility of independence to the new States in the future would have been absurd.
The right to secede was a given, ranking with life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Other than your speculation do you have any evidence?

Never the less the flying fists of the Constitution were ratified and effectively prohibit unilateral secession of the 1860 - 1861 variety. Secession was addressed without any need of mention of secession.
p1-png.png
p2-png.png
p3-png.png
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,877
Location
los angeles ca
Of course, there was no Section 5 in Article IV, and for good reason.
No State would have ratified the Constitution
if the Constitution had prohibited the possibility of secession
and stated that secession would be stopped by military force.

Section 3 is clear about the conditions and method for a State to be admitted.
The founding fathers could have just as easily addressed secession.
However, they had just fought a war of independence against tyranny.
To deny the possibility of independence to the new States in the future would have been absurd.
The right to secede was a given, ranking with life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Can you please quote case law to support your position. Did not Texas v. White address these issues in 1866? Perhaps if your an attorney one could persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider Texas v. White.
There would no doubt be many greatful folks if you could.
Leftyhunter
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,526
Location
Right here.
Of course, there was no Section 5 in Article IV, and for good reason.
No State would have ratified the Constitution
if the Constitution had prohibited the possibility of secession
and stated that secession would be stopped by military force.

Section 3 is clear about the conditions and method for a State to be admitted.
The founding fathers could have just as easily addressed secession.
However, they had just fought a war of independence against tyranny.
To deny the possibility of independence to the new States in the future would have been absurd.
The right to secede was a given, ranking with life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Except James Madison and Alexander Hamilton told New York's ratification convention there was no chance of leaving the Union.
Patrick Henry told Virginia's ratification convention once they ratified the Constitution there was no chance of going back.
Gov. Samuel Johnston told North Carolina's ratification convention a state could not withdraw under the Constitution.
In each state the Antifederalists all warned of the dangers of a centralized government under the Constitution, and no one at all said, "Don't worry, if it gets too bad we can just secede."

They all ratified the Constitution knowing they could not withdraw from it later on. That's actual history instead of an opinion based on what one hopes would be true.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,535
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Except James Madison and Alexander Hamilton told New York's ratification convention there was no chance of leaving the Union.
Patrick Henry told Virginia's ratification convention once they ratified the Constitution there was no chance of going back.
Gov. Samuel Johnston told North Carolina's ratification convention a state could not withdraw under the Constitution.
In each state the Antifederalists all warned of the dangers of a centralized government under the Constitution, and no one at all said, "Don't worry, if it gets too bad we can just secede."

They all ratified the Constitution knowing they could not withdraw from it later on. That's actual history instead of an opinion based on what one hopes would be true.
All very good points.
In addition if the Convention wanted secession to be legal in all cases, they all they had to do was keep the articles of Confederation. The truth is that the founding fathers were sick and tired of unlimited States Rights and wanted a nation.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

amweiner

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
2,595
Location
Monterey, CA
If California votes to secede, will we use military force to stop them?
From the little I've seen here, the focus has been on petitioning Congress to let California out of the Union rather than attempting a unilateral secession. Your post presumes that secession in itself led to military action as opposed to the attack on a US military installation.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
12,586
Of course, there was no Section 5 in Article IV, and for good reason.
No State would have ratified the Constitution
if the Constitution had prohibited the possibility of secession
and stated that secession would be stopped by military force.

Section 3 is clear about the conditions and method for a State to be admitted.
The founding fathers could have just as easily addressed secession.
However, they had just fought a war of independence against tyranny.
To deny the possibility of independence to the new States in the future would have been absurd.
The right to secede was a given, ranking with life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
There was no need to include a provision prohibiting secession in our Constitution as it was built on the traditions and understandings of the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation. These defined our nation as a "perpetual Union".
 
Last edited:

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
7,632
Location
California
No State would have ratified the Constitution
if the Constitution had prohibited the possibility of secession
and stated that secession would be stopped by military force.
I think they all would have ratified under those conditions.



The right to secede was a given, ranking with life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that "all men" are "endowed by their Creator" (so says the Declaration).
Secession is an action by a government. I dont believe that governments are endowed by God with rights.
The "right to secede" is not a given nor is it even a right.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,535
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
From the little I've seen here, the focus has been on petitioning Congress to let California out of the Union rather than attempting a unilateral secession. Your post presumes that secession in itself led to military action as opposed to the attack on a US military installation.
That is always the distraction. Consensual secession with protection is always permissible. Non-consensual secession without protection has dire consequences.
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,877
Location
los angeles ca
If California votes to secede, will we use military force to stop them?
Any state as the right to vote to secede however that does not equal a legal secession. That would require a constitutional amendment.
By the way you do know that the Confederates did use coercion including murder on Southern voters who refused to vote for secession? I have posted sources I can repost them here after work.
Leftyhunter
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,859
Location
Denmark
If California votes to secede, will we use military force to stop them?
If they do so by attacking US military bases... just like South Carolina did... then yes it would very likely end is war.

What some people in California is talking about is very different from what SC did.
Unilateral secession vs. leaving in agreement with the other states.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top