# Is Secession Treason? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 24, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405 "2009-09-24T18:45:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/21 "2009-09-24T21:19:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Is this how political disputes ought to be settled? > > Party A: “I want to do _x._” > > Party B: “You’re not allowed to.” > > Party A: “I could argue with you; I could try to find a mutually acceptable solution; but instead, let’s just go to war!” > > If South Carolina believed there was a lawful right to secession in the Constitution, they could have pursued lawful means to achieve it. They thought that they did have that right - and then they voted to secede. The Union refused to honor that vote. What was the next step for them to follow? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/22 "2009-09-24T21:21:37Z")
If there was a lawful right to secession in the Constitution, I suppose the Supreme Court would have sided with the Confederacy. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/23 "2009-09-24T21:26:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > If there was a lawful right to secession in the Constitution, I suppose the Supreme Court would have sided with the Confederacy. Supremes did not make any decisions until after the war, making the immediate point moot. I also agree that the right is not recognized under current Constitutional law, nor do I see that changing. I simply think that if we are still a Union of States, a State should have the right to leave the Union. I consider this the equivalent of the citizen’s Right to no longer be a citizen. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/24 "2009-09-24T21:27:19Z")
The justification for the war at the time was that secession is anathema to democracy. That works for me, though it would’ve been interesting to see how things played out had the CSA won. The Confederates had dreams of empire; had they been able to stay together and attain and hold dominion over large parts of North, Central, and South America in a stable way, it would have belied Lincoln’s rationalization. Has there ever been a nation which allowed sections to secede unilaterally? > [@Alessan](#): > > That’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? The South claimed that they were states united into a nation. The North claimed that they were a nation divided into states. I tend to side with the North: if a state can secede, why not a county? A town? An individual? That way lies chaos, IMHO. I can’t speak to the absolute veracity of this statement, but the famous example is that the outcome of the civil war had an impact on subject-verb agreement. Prior to the war, the standard construction was: “the United States _are_.” Subsequent to the war, that changed to: “the United States _is_.” ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/25 "2009-09-24T21:30:12Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > I agree - there is no legal path for a State to secede. Then again, if a State does vote that way, I do not consider the members to be Traitors just because the Union refuses to accept their vote. Whack-a-Mole said there’s no legal _right_ to secede; there is a legal path–just get enough states to agree to the secession (sort of like passing an amendment). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/26 "2009-09-24T21:35:45Z")
> [@stuthehistoryguy](#): > > In legal circles, however, allegiance to a foreign power is necessary for treason. In the U.S. Constitution, Article III Section 3 states: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” It does not say the “enemies” have to be foreign; and certainly Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee were guilty of levying war against the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/27 "2009-09-24T21:41:38Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > The justification for the war at the time was that secession is anathema to democracy. That works for me, though it would’ve been interesting to see how things played out had the CSA won. The Confederates had dreams of empire; had they been able to stay together and attain and hold dominion over large parts of North, Central, and South America in a stable way, it would have belied Lincoln’s rationalization. > > Has there ever been a nation which allowed sections to secede unilaterally? > I can’t speak to the absolute veracity of this statement, but the famous example is that the outcome of the civil war had an impact on subject-verb agreement. Prior to the war, the standard construction was: “the United States _are_.” Subsequent to the war, that changed to: “the United States _is_.” Would Canada & Australia becoming independent nations count? You are right about the terminology change. Another interesting bit of sociology is that people referred to themselves as Virginians, not Americans. The Civil War was a huge shift in mentality in the USA. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/28 "2009-09-24T21:42:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In the U.S. Constitution, Article III Section 3 states: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” It does not say the “enemies” have to be foreign; and certainly Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee were guilty of levying war against the United States. Sure, but if they have renounced their citizenship, how can they be traitors? The Germans and the Japanese levied war against us, but we don’t call them traitors. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/29 "2009-09-24T21:52:41Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Supremes did not make any decisions until after the war, making the immediate point moot. I also agree that the right is not recognized under current Constitutional law, nor do I see that changing. > > I simply think that if we are still a Union of States, a State should have the right to leave the Union. I consider this the equivalent of the citizen’s Right to no longer be a citizen. First of all, you speak of the Supreme Court ruling on secession as if they simply didn’t get around to it until 1869. (I believe that was the year.) If South Carolina believed the law was on their side and that secession was an inalienable right of a state, then they could have actually brought suit to force the judicial system to evaluate the claim. However, one can’t have it both ways by saying that there is a lawful right to secede and also argue that there is no legal route to secession, necessitating war. Therefore, if one chooses to secede by illegal means, then the secession is illegal and invalid. Hence, treason. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/30 "2009-09-24T22:04:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > First of all, you speak of the Supreme Court ruling on secession as if they simply didn’t get around to it until 1869. (I believe that was the year.) If South Carolina believed the law was on their side and that secession was an inalienable right of a state, then they could have actually brought suit to force the judicial system to evaluate the claim. > > However, one can’t have it both ways by saying that there is a lawful right to secede and also argue that there is no legal route to secession, necessitating war. Therefore, if one chooses to secede by illegal means, then the secession is illegal and invalid. Hence, treason. I personally believe that there is a Right to secede. The US Constitution does not list (enumerate?) that Right. The Union chose to not recognize that Right. I don’t even know what path South Carolina would have had to take, and where they would have sued. If, in the end, the USSC had said, “nope - no right to secede to be found here!” - then could they have split anyway? They did not consider themselves citizens of the Union anymore. That is why I don’t consider secession to be Treason. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/31 "2009-09-24T22:45:36Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Now being a traitor isn’t always bad, mind you. That kind of depends on the reason for the act of treason. This is the thing. Treason is widely considered abhorrent and immoral, with reason, but sometimes it’s justifiable. If you sell military secrets to an enemy power, without regard to the fact that your fellow citizens will die because of your action, it is treason and morally little better than any other common crime. If you take arms against your government in order to liberate your people, and attempt to restrict as possible your use of tactics that could be considered terroristic, then it is also treason, and it is a crime, but definitely a political crime. It can be morally justifiable. I’d say that George Washington was a traitor, since he did take up arms against his country. But it is usually Benedict Arnold who’s seen as the traitor, and he actually rejoined the “legitimate” side. They both were, but one of them had a much stronger claim to moral legitimacy. Taking up arms to effect secession is treason. Whether it’s justified depends on the specific case, and there can be disagreement over this. And of course, secession can also be effected without arms and without any action that would fall under the definition of treason. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/32 "2009-09-24T22:51:51Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Sure, but if they have renounced their citizenship, how can they be traitors? The Germans and the Japanese levied war against us, but we don’t call them traitors. I don’t think renouncing your citizenship expressly in order to wage war against your country counts as a valid renunciation. And I believe that it’s even possible to commit treason against a country you’re not a citizen of, if you have enough of a link to it (by being a resident, for example). But I’m not a legal expert and I can’t tell you what the theory would be. > [@Algher](#): > > Would Canada & Australia becoming independent nations count? This happened over a long period, and mostly through acts of the British Parliament, so I think they consented. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/33 "2009-09-24T22:59:02Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > The US Constitution does not list (enumerate?) that Right. > The Union chose to not recognize that Right. Who is the Union in that sentence? Last time I checked, neither the president nor Congress is the final word on the rights of people or states. > [@](#): > > They did not consider themselves citizens of the Union anymore. That is why I don’t consider secession to be Treason. This sounds like the militia/Freeman nonsense that they don’t consider Federal courts to have authority over them, therefore they don’t have to obey US laws. Just because you really really really REALLY don’t want US laws to apply to you doesn’t exempt you from them. ---
**Author:** ![hobscrk777](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a6a055/32.png) [@hobscrk777](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hobscrk777)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/34 "2009-09-24T23:02:07Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > We are a union of States. If a State legislature votes to leave, they should have that right. Why is joining the Union a one way path? > > There might need to be a reckoning of local assets, but the State should still be allowed to secede IMHO. Because States aren’t the sole entity under a Federal system of government. The federal government of the US also has a say in whether States leave. The United States government is not a league. To suggest that any State may leave whenever it feels like is to say that the US is not a nation, let alone one with a Federal system of government. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/35 "2009-09-24T23:24:35Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > I personally believe that there is a Right to secede. > The US Constitution does not list (enumerate?) that Right. > The Union chose to not recognize that Right. And as you note, neither did the framers. Where do you believe the right to secede comes from? > [@](#): > > I don’t even know what path South Carolina would have had to take, and where they would have sued. U.S. Const. Art. III, Section 2. “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” So they could sue directly in the Supreme Court > [@](#): > > If, in the end, the USSC had said, “nope - no right to secede to be found here!” - then could they have split anyway? Well, if they recognize the supreme court as interpreting constitutional law, no, not legally. If they weren’t willing to recognize the decision of the Supreme Court, why sue in the first place? Of course, as a practical matter, a state could (and the Confederacy tried to) secede whether or not they first got a ruling on whether it was legal. They could also secede even if they didn’t believe the U.S. Constitution gave them the right to secede. This is because the question you seem to be asking here, after a loss in the S. Ct. is a practical one–whether they could successfully leave the Union, and assert exclusive sovereignty over their territory. That is a question that will be debated between the state in question and General W.T. Sherman, and is entirely distinct from the question of whether the constitution gives a state the legal right to secede, or whether there is any legal means through which a state can secede from the Union, perhaps by gaining the consent of the Union and the remaining states, or by a resolution of congress, or something like that. > [@](#): > > They did not consider themselves citizens of the Union anymore. That is why I don’t consider secession to be Treason. Under this theory, someone can get out of treason charges by just saying “I don’t consider myself a U.S. Citizen anymore.” That can’t be right. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/36 "2009-09-24T23:33:46Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > Under this theory, someone can get out of treason charges by just saying “I don’t consider myself a U.S. Citizen anymore.” That can’t be right. If someone gave up their citizenship BEFORE committing the so-called treasonous acts, I would not consider them a traitor. They might still be a criminal, an enemy combatant, etc. - but not a traitor in my eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/37 "2009-09-24T23:35:52Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > And as you note, neither did the framers. Where do you believe the right to secede comes from? I would consider the ability to choose your nation to be an inalienable Right. The Constitution does not have to list every right, it only is supposed to list the powers of the State. Did the Framers have anything to say about the right to secession? I honestly do not know. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/38 "2009-09-24T23:55:17Z")
I just realized I have no idea of the sequence of events that led to the Civil War. Did the southern states meet and ratify secession before hostilities erupted? Who did they petition to secede, Congress? Did Congress vote on it? Did they try to bring the issue before the SC? What was it that caused the first shots to be fired? ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/39 "2009-09-25T00:12:21Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > I just realized I have no idea of the sequence of events that led to the Civil War. Did the southern states meet and ratify secession before hostilities erupted? Who did they petition to secede, Congress? Did Congress vote on it? Did they try to bring the issue before the SC? What was it that caused the first shots to be fired? They didn’t petition anyone–State legislatures passed resolutions like this one [Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp) declaring that > [@](#): > > We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. . Congress didn’t vote on it, and neither did the supreme court. The states seceded individually, and then met to form their own union. Some states (seven) seceded before the attack on Fort Sumter, generally understood to be the start of the civil war–four seceded afterward. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405/40 "2009-09-25T00:24:12Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > I would consider the ability to choose your nation to be an inalienable Right. The Constitution does not have to list every right, it only is supposed to list the powers of the State. > > Did the Framers have anything to say about the right to secession? I honestly do not know. That may be true–but that says nothing about whether that right is one of constitutional secession or extra-constitutional revolution (an act “illegal” under the then-existing constitutional framework). As in my last response to you, of course states have the “right” to revolution–they just have to win the war. That’s not a question of constitutional law–that’s a ‘debate’ between Grant and Lee. That’s entirely different from whether states have the right to unilaterally secede from the Union, under the terms of the U.S. constitution (under which the states gave up some of their sovereign power to form a new nation). James Buchanan, commonly held to be one of the worst presidents in American history (but the president right before the civil war) was careful to make such a distinction in his 1860 State of the Union Address: > [@](#): > > The Southern States, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have right to demand this act of justice [upholding the Fugitive Slave Act] from the States of the North. Should it be refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will have been willfully violated by one portion of them in a provision essential to the domestic security and happiness of the remainder. In that event the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union. > > I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance, because it has been claimed within the last few years that any State, whenever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede from the Union in accordance with the Constitution and without any violation of the constitutional rights of the other members of the Confederacy; that as each became parties to the Union by the vote of its own people assembled in convention, so any one of them may retire from the Union in a similar manner by the vote of such a convention. If one looks past his plea to uphold the fugitive slave act, I think he very clearly sets out why unilateral secession is simply inconsistent with the constitution–the constitution was not drafted, and did not create a loose association-but a framework in which states gave up their sovereign power in part to the federal government. > [@](#): > > The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain. > > It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory. It is altogether rounded upon inference; not from any language contained in the instrument itself, but from the sovereign character of the several States by which it was ratified. But is it beyond the power of a State, like an individual, to yield a portion of its sovereign rights to secure the remainder? In the language of Mr. Madison, who has been called the father of the Constitution > > It was formed by the States; that is, by the people in each of the States acting in their highest sovereign capacity, and formed, consequently, by the same authority which formed the State constitutions. Nor is the Government of the United States, created by the Constitution, less a government, in the strict sense of the term, within the sphere of its powers than the governments created by the constitutions of the States are within their several spheres. It is, like them, organized into legislative, executive, and judiciary departments. It operates, like them directly on persons and things, and, like them, it has at command a physical force for executing the powers committed to it. > > It was intended to be perpetual, and not to be annulled at the pleasure of any one of the contracting parties. The old Articles of Confederation were entitled “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States,” and by the thirteenth article it is expressly declared that “the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual.” The preamble to the Constitution of the United States, having express reference to the Articles of Confederation, recites that it was established “in order to form a more perfect union.” And yet it is contended that this “more perfect union” does not include the essential attribute of perpetuity. > > But that the Union was designed to be perpetual appears conclusively from the nature and extent of the powers conferred by the Constitution on the Federal Government. These powers embrace the very highest attributes of national sovereignty. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-secession-treason/511405.md?page=3)