Where in the Constitution does it speak against Secession? People say it does but I'm not findin it!?

Question

I'm a "southern hothead" who has been searching for proof that Secession is "Un-constitutional".

If so, the United States violated it's own law with their secession from Britain!!!

Answer 1

It doesn't. As a matter of fact it is a power reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment.

Answer 2

I'm going to have to disagree with your respondents here who say secession is not allowed in the Constitution. Prior to beginning answering your question here, I began reviewing "The Heritage Guide to The Constitution", Edwin Meese III, Chairman of the Editorial Advisory Board and Former U.S. Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, and David Forte, Senior Editor and former Chief Counsel to the United States Delegation to the United Nations; Regnery Publishing, Inc., (2005), and I was unable to find anything under the word "secession", however, if my memory serves me correctly, secession was perfectly legal when South Carolina began the process of the the South forming the Confederacy. I then turned to a new book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to The South (and Why It Will Rise Again)" by Clinton Johnson; Regnery Publishing, (2006), and I see clear wording beginning in Chapter 10 entitled "Why The South Seceeded", where it says, "The new Confederate leaders . . . believed the United States Constitution was written as a compact among states from which secession was an obvious option if the central government seemed overbearing. In other words, they did not think the Union was irrevocable." (p. 136). It goes on to state, "The Ordinance of Secession adopted by South Carolina in December 1860 . . . quotes both the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Paris (signed with Great Britain to end the American Revolution), both of which called the colonies 'free and independent states'. The Ordinance then quotes the first ruling document of the new United States, the Articles of Confederation: 'that each State retains its sovereignity, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled'."(p. 136). The book goes on to say, on the next page, "In the Ordinance of Secession South Carolina says it, 'has resumed its position among the nations of the world'."(p. 137) "It (South Carolina) wanted to be its own nation." (p. 137).

So, I believe that South Carolina, and all the Southern States clearly believed that States' rights were the premium in this new Constitution of the United States, and, as is clearly stated in the Constitution on numerous issues, if the Constitution does not specifically delegate something to the Federal Government, it is left up to the States to operate unhindered in that arena. So, for that reason and South Carolina's reference to the Artilces of Confederation of the new States, and the Treaty of Paris, in which the American Revolution was concluded, it is indicated that they had full reason to believe that secession was within their purvey of operation, and so opted for such. I can say that sounds extremely familiar with my history classes I had way back in grade school. The fact that I too am a "Southern hothead" (Southern is ALWAYS spelled with a capital "S") should not be "read into" my answer. Yeah, right! God Bless you. Oh, and the colonies' revolution against Great Britain which had to be signed in yet another foreign country, France, shows clearly that the two issues are totally unrelated. God Be With you.

Answer 3

That's the point -- the Constitution has no provision for secession,
so the states aren't allowed to secede. When the South seceded they were in rebellion against the United States and the constitution. A war was fought to preserve the Union and the South lost. Case closed.

The United States did not exist nor did the constitution exist when the Colonies rebelled against England. They declared their right to separate from England and won independence and established the USA through contest of arms.

Answer 4

The Constitution was not written when they declared Independence from Britain, so they did not violate their own law. (And the Constitution does cover that, regarding ex post facto laws.)

As for the Constitutionality, that's a question of interpretation. It's not explicit in the Constitution.

The problem with Secession is that once a state chooses this route, it becomes a foreign nation (and likely an enemy one.) There is nothing to prevent the original country from invading.

Answer 5

The Constitution made no mention of “perpetual union,” and it did not contain any prohibition against the secession of states from the union. The point was raised in the constitutional convention: Should there be a “perpetual union” clause in the Constitution? The delegates voted it down, and the states were left free to secede under the Constitution, which remains the U. S. government charter today.

Answer 6

No it doesn't speak of secession,it does speak of states rights.In this country we have reversed the power of government.According to the constitution the most powerful government should be city,then county,then state,then federal.The federal government took control by controlling the funds.if a state does not follow their orders they withhold fund.One example was in the 1970s they made a 55 mile a hour speed limit and would not give money for interstate roads unless they complied

Answer 7

that is different we didn't succeed from Britain we gained Independence as a nation and the Constitution was written after the revolutionary war. South Carolina was the first state to try and succeed from the Union prior to the Civil War

Answer 8

The Constitution does not speak about secession. However it doesn't say that states have the right to nullify federal laws it doesn't like. States that sign the Constitition are expected to follow it.

Answer 9

got me. don't recall that part, Damn Yankees. hey what are we, in the western us called? seriously, i don't think it says so, and would like to be proven correct. Secession is freedom

Answer 10

Dare I say it? Your logic is beyond flawed.