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

Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
28
#1
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.
 

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

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,549
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#2
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
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,677
Location
los angeles ca
#3
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
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,677
Location
los angeles ca
#5
It's just my opinion.
Evidence? Case law?
It seems like common sense, to me.
History, politics and love are not based on common sense. If folks had common sense the world would be a whole lot different. Now how do we even attempt to define" common sense"?
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,526
Location
Right here.
#7
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

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,549
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#9
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.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
2,625
Location
Monterey, CA
#13
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
11,860
#14
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:
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
7,639
Location
California
#15
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.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,549
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#16
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.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,677
Location
los angeles ca
#18
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
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,639
Location
Denmark
#20
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