Did the Constituion outlaw secession?

Question

I've read through the US Constitution and don't remember seeing anything outlawing secession. I might have misssed it, but if it's not there than I don't understand how the union could have justified military action.

Answer 1

You’re correct that there is nothing barring State secession in the Constitution of the United States. Justification of Union (federal government might be more precise) military action is both complex and controversial.

First is the fact that the States were individual entities politically as well as culturally. At the same time these colonies come States were heirs to old English Common Law and the evolving rights of the individual first formalized within the first great charter, Magna Carta [1215]. Forms of Magna Carta were resigned and committed to by later English kings. In addition subsequent formal statements of freedoms were created, such as, The Petition of Right [1628], An Agreement of the Free People of England [1649], The Bill of Rights [1689], Declaration of the First Continental Congress [1774].

While all of this (and much more) is the heritage of these colonies, we generally point to the Declaration of Independence [1776] as our beginning. This was continued in the coming together of these colonies to fight a war to make in fact their freedoms and in that coming together they wrote and signed the Articles of Confederation [1778]. This last document was signed in perpetuity, to last for ever.

From 1776 through 1786 these Colonies became true States by each and every one independently writing and signing their own Constitutions. This was recognized internationally in 1783 with signing of the Treaty of Peace that these States signed through the general government created in the Articles of Confederation, with Great Britain, in Paris. In Article One each of these States are named and recognized as Free, Independent and Sovereign.

As it became obvious that common need among these individual States was increasing, additional powers should be granted to that government. As we all are aware, that didn’t happen and a new general government (as defined through the delegated powers of the Constitution) was proposed. To join that union of the new Constitution each State had to ratify it. To do so a functional seceding from the Articles of Confederation (which they had joined in perpetuity) had to occur.

At this point, the free, independent and sovereign nature of each State was recognized and it was only minimized within the new Constitution by those specific powers delegated to the created general government and some powers withdrawn from the States. In all other ways the States remained the same.

This didn’t change with the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution (The Bill of rights) because of their nature and intent. The first 8 were exclusion in that they excluded the general (federal) government from specific acts and were not intended to apply to the States. The last two were declaratory truths which recognized all other powers and rights to the States and the people. Non of this removed the power of the States to secede from the Union and no where was the federal government delegated the power to maintain the Union by forcing States to remain members.

Even with this foundation not all agreed with this interpretation of Founder intent. Alexander Hamilton for example wanted a stronger general government and even proposed that seats within the federal government Senate become hereditary. However, the structure of the Constitution provided a Foundation for the States to maintain an oversight of the federal government. The Senators were selected by State legislatures and, the President was selected by a group of delegates (Electoral College) to ensure that the Executive remained separate from political intrigue and politics.

There is even doubt as to the role of the Supreme Court. That is the States were to be considered as the final arbiter of federal acts and their constitutionality. This was accomplished through the act of State Nullification. Here State legislatures could determine a federal act as unconstitutional and “nullify” that act within the borders of that individual State. The Virginia Resolution (written by James Madison) and the Kentucky Resolution (written by Thomas Jefferson) are good places to read about this State power. Of course, each State retained its right to secede from the Union.

Chief Justice John Marshall opined in McColuch v. Maryland [1819] that the words “Necessary” and “Proper” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) meant the same thing. This provided a basis for the federal Congress to do anything it wanted. Both Madison and Jefferson wrote against this decision. With John C. Calhoun’s 1828 Exposition State power to nullify and/or secede was promoted. This had to do with federal tariffs and without a compromise almost brought the country to war with President Jackson threatening troops.

As each year passed after ratification the federal government expanded with intrusions into State and individual powers and rights. Increasingly those of the federal government became convinced of the right to do so, one intrusion building on another. By the time of the American War of the 1860s, Many in the federal government believed that Union superceded all other considerations.

When South Carolina seceded it was known (per General Winfield Scott) that maintaining the Union Forts within Charleston Harbor was impossible short of 20,000 federal troops which didn’t exist. South Carolina also made the federal government aware that any attempt to supply those forts would be considered an act of war.

Clearly those of the federal government came to believe that secession was not legal and those of the States (including some in the North) believed that secession was an existing right of the States. As the Founders feared, government (any government) over time will grow and expand to assume all power. Justification was settled by blood and war. It never was justified Constitutionally. In 1868 the 14th Amendment was applied by the federal government even though it never met Constitutional requirements for ratification. However, in 1869 in the case Texas v. White it was justified (in the opinion of the court) due to right of Conquest.

Answer 2

No, the north just won the war. They had the machines to make the guns. They also had more conviction, a better army, and luck.It is not in the Constitution. There could be a civil war with a secession if there were the same conditions as the north had.

Answer 3

I think it was an act of rebellion firing on Union troops. So in that sense, it was a 'rebellion'.

As far as Congress was concerned, the minority of congressman who knew they'd loose any upcoming vote, would threaten secession as a means to hold hostage the rest of the senate. This is obviously 'unfair' and congress may have passed some type of federal law about the process of filing secession had to be voted on, - and won by majority vote.

Answer 4

You are correct in your reading of the Constitution. The document describes how states can opt in. It days nothing about how they may leave. However, for the greater good, it was decided in 1860 that they may not arbitrarily leave.

Answer 5

I don't know. I do know Sam Houston, when negotiating with the U.S. about Texas becoming the 28th state, had it put in that Texas could legally secede from the United States.

Answer 6

The War of Northern Aggression was over states' rights. The North did not recognize Southern states rights to secede. The North waged an illegal war against the South to force them to give up their states' rights.

Answer 7

No. By force of arms they were holding the south to the contract (constitution).

Answer 8

Of course not. the north was denying what it had asserted in 1776.
At sea, it was asserting what it had denied in 1812.

Answer 9

That question is not addressed by the constitution.

So we settled it with a war.