When the southern states seceded, one of the legal arguments made by the United States was that the population of those states were American citizens and by seceding, the state governments were denying them their rights as such. The same argument would preclude the federal government from selling off any state. If it sold Maine to Canada, it would be taking away the citizenship rights of all of the people in Maine.
I’m sorry; I forgot to leave a thank-you for the answers. Appreciate it.
One of the most interesting perspectives that I’d ever read on the “Right to Secede” was an article penned by Walter Williams, current chair of the Economics department at George Mason University. He comes down much more clearly on the affirmative side, (A libertarian myself, I agree with his views on many issues).
A Northerner myself, and having always grown up being told that ‘we’ were right, and the ‘south’ was wrong, I’ve since changed my mind, and now indeed view it as “The War of Northern Aggression”
That article by Williams was actually a review of a book The Real Lincoln that was written by Thomas DiLorenzo. Williams and DiLorenzo are both selling the Libertarian viewpoint with little pretense of objectivity. This site offers a long lists of errors in DiLorenzo’s books. So does this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one.
Not to mention that DiLorenzo couldn’t get anyone better to write the back-cover blurb on his book than well-known neo-Nazi, conspiracy theorist, and all-around nutbag, Joseph Sobran.
Some of the later posts on this thread address the issue of land that is already part (or all) of an existing state.
As for non-state territories, there are a few precedents – e.g. the US giving up its claim to the northern section of the Oregon Country (“54-40 Or Fight” rhetoric nothwithstanding), the US granting independence to the Philippines.
Not at all. He says that at the time, i.e. in 1860, most people thought that states had a right to secede. However, check his opening lines.
That’s exactly what everybody here has said. Since the Civil War nobody can argue successfully that states have a right to secede. The matter is settled.
I’ve read very extensively on the period and my view is just the opposite. The South was wrong in every conceivable way. I don’t want to debate the issue, but I’m curious how you can possibly argue otherwise.
One of the quotes Williams mentions that he claims proves that secession was widely recognized as legal was by James Madison. This pretty much makes everything else in that article suspect. The legality of secession was a debated issue in Madison’s lifetime and he did record his opinions on the subject - and he clearly stated that he did not believe states had the right to secede from the United States. So anyone claiming to cite Madison in support of secession is either very ignorant of the subject or is knowingly lying.
One might observe that the Confederacy itself evidently regarded it as a little chancy, for the Confederate constitution added an explicit secession clause.
I don’t believe it did.
Here’s the complete text. I don’t see a secession clause, explicit or implied, in it.
That’s seems a dumb argument to me. It’s even dumber than the concept of case law. Case law: if a judge thinks one way once, it’ll be Right forever. What you’re saying: if we kick someone’s ass once, our back-justification will be Right forever.
Arguing over this is stupid. The law clearly doesn’t apply. This was just revolution/subjugation, pure and simple. England lost, the North won. We didn’t spew some legal bullshit about how it was ok for us to say fuck you to England, so why are we spewing legal bullshit how it wasn’t ok for the South to say fuck you to us? It’s just empty air to make the victor feel better about himself, to pretend that it wasn’t war pure and simple.
Well, arguing about it this way is less productive than it would be if you cited some authority for what you say, but as they say, “you’ve gotta dance with what you brought.”
How so? What basis do you have for making this claim?
Revolutions are just about always illegal under municipal law.
Mkay.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm
And see David Armitage, The Declaration of Indepence: A Global History (2007).
Alex, you’re asserting again.
When has that ever worked for you?
Except, I think you’re misunderstanding what the argument is. Sure, had the Confederacy won the war, they would have been independent. Revolution writes its own laws. But what the Southern states that seceded claimed was that their secession was legal under US law. They didn’t just say, “We’re being mistreated and we have a natural right to secede.” They said “We have a legal right to secede”. So, it’s ok to analyze that according to US law, because that’s the standard they used.
What about a simple application of the tenth amendment? A power to secede is (obviously) not granted to the national government, nor is it prohibited to the states (in any text of the constitution). Therefore the power to secede is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people, no?
That’s begging the question. You’re making the unspoken assumption that a right to secede exists by saying the issue is whether it’s a state or federal right.
I equate Texas v White with Roe v Wade in that the ruling may be correct from a legal standpoint, but the SCOTUS decision is so poorly written and reads more like “this is what the law SHOULD say” that it is hard to accept it as case law.
I don’t think I am. Secession is a “power”, is it not? It may be illegitimate or unrecognized in modern times, but why shouldn’t it be considered a power for tenth amendment purposes?
In other words, under your thoughts, what would be some hypothetical powers that fall under a tenth amendment analysis?
Well, Madison, who one would assume knew something about the bill of rights, was of the opinion that it wasn’t. From his response to essays: