Walter Williams: Wrong on Secession

Last week, Walter Williams published a column called The Real Lincoln, in which he mostly quoted editorialists to support his claim that "virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession."

If that were really true, of course, the Civil War would never have been fought. "Virtually every" political leader in Washington would have let the secessionist states go their own ways. But of course they didn't do that. Instead, they prosecuted a long, bloody war to prevent it. So that part of Williams' case simply fails.

The question remains as to the legality of secession: does the Constitution grant power to the Federal Government to prevent it? Oddly, Williams does not refer to the Constitution itself, to see whether it has something to say about the matter. Rather, Williams (quoting author Thomas DiLorenzo) only provides several quotations about the Constitution, and peoples' opinions about secession.

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Thus, the Constitution recognizes the possibility of rebellion (armed secession would seem to qualify), and gives Congress the power to suppress it.

The next question is: does secession represent a rebellion or insurrection? Webster's defines insurrection as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." So if secession is a revolt against the defined powers and authority of the Federal Government, as defined in the Constitution, then the Federal Government is granted the power to prevent it.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The secessionist states clearly violated almost every part of Section 10 -- especially that last clause -- and would by any standard be considered in a state of insurrection.

Article III, Section 3 states that Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The actions of the people in secessionist states fit this definition of treason, and it is within the powers of the Federal Government to deal with them.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Section VI clearly states that, since the Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land," the interests of individual states are inferior to those of the United States -- even if their state Constitutions say otherwise. The individual states are bound to remain part of the United States, both by their ratification of the Constitution, and also by their Oath of Affirmation to support the Constitution.

A plain reading of the Constitution not only does not support DiLorenzo's (and thus Williams's) argument, it flat-out refutes it. The powers of the Federal Government do in fact include the power to prevent secession, and Lincoln was properly discharging his duties as President when he acted against the Confederacy.

DiLorenzo's argument thus reduces to whether or not Congress and Lincoln should have allowed the seceeding states to violate the supreme Law of the Land with impunity -- which puts DiLorenzo in the awkward position of having to argue against the rule of Law.

Finally, the pro-secession case simply ignores history: a war between North and South was inevitable. It had been brewing for decades. Even had the secession been allowed to proceed, war would undoubtedly have occurred anyway, following the pattern of Kansas in the 1850s.

Williams is a smart fellow, and he says a lot of good things. But he also says some dumb things -- his "Lincoln" column being exhibit A.

I'm long on facts and short on patience with sophisms like what you're attempting to pass off as fact. Not knowing how old you are (I suspect 22 or so) I would venture to guess that I was discussing Article VI and the rest of the document with adults before you were born. The supremacy clause doesn't say what you claim it says. No matter how many times you refer me to it, the wording hasn't changed in my lifetime and your insistence that it has is pointless.

Article VI, the second paragraph, commonly known as the supremacy clause establishes that the Constitution and treaties signed by the US and federal laws passed pursuant to the Constitution are superior to state laws and state constitutions. This doesn't mean that anything the federal government takes upon itself to do is to be slavishly given obesiance by the states. It means that what is in the Constitution is what all states in the US have agreed to and that all the states have agreed to the extent to which the federal government will have power to operate. That clause lists specifically all the areas in which the Constitution, and treaties and laws passed pursuant to the Constitution are superior to the laws and constitutions of the states. It is nowhere near the justification for a supreme, all powerful central government that you pretend it is. You would benefit from reading the rest of the document.

The states are restrained from very little by the Constitution. Those restraints are listed precisely and the list is complete. The federal government is empowered to do very little in comparison to the states. Federal powers are listed specifically within the articles and the amendments and the list of powers is comprehensive. There are no federal powers except those specifically granted in the Constitution.

You're claiming that I'm factually wrong without being able to show a single line of text from the Constitution to illustrate where I am "short on facts". That's a lie from you right there, so I have no hesitation in saying that you're lying. I'll also add that you're failing utterly to make a case for any of the nonsensical assertions you've made. States don't take oaths after all, do they? Your summation was pitiful and your failure to even attempt a defense of it shows the bankruptcy of your position.

If you have anything at all other than cites from the Constitution which don't read as you interpret them, trot them out. Otherwise, shut up and stop wasting bandwidth arguing with people who know about a subject that you don't even have a frame of reference to discuss.

Well, you're certainly strident. You've still not offered a cogent argument to defend your statements, however.

Take this, for example:

It is nowhere near the justification for a supreme, all powerful central government that you pretend it is. You would benefit from reading the rest of the document.

I never said that. Not even close. I simply noted that an oath to uphold the Constitution presumably means something -- namely, that the swearer will do just that.

Likewise, the fact that a state has ratified the Constitution means two things: first, that it has agreed to be bound by it; and second, that it has entered into a compact with other states, meaning that it cannot unilaterally dissolve its ratificataion.

Secession explicitly dissolves the Constitutional bond, and violates the contract entered into with the other states of the Union. The people who pass articles of secession are in direct violation of oath to uphold the Constitution.

Moreover, articles of secession fall neatly into that category of "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding," against which the Constitution is explicitly defined as the "supreme Law of the Land."

Violation of the supreme Law of the Land is the sort of thing that the Federal Government is expressly empowered to address (in the insurrection clause, for example).

It does not seem possible to call unilateral secession anything other than an act of insurrection.

As to comments concerning age, I can only surmise that all your years of experience have as yet failed to teach you the benefits of civil behavior.

Since none of the actors claimed that the 10th gave them the right to secede I will point out that it is only the modern day revisionists who believe the South had the right to do so under the 10th. The leaders of the South were smart enough not to try that phony argument.

No powers are reserved which affect the nation as a whole so clearly secession could not possibly be among those powers. Simple logic shows the limit of the 10th. Only state concerns whose effects were limited to an individual state came under the 10th amendment as a study of its promulgation would show you.

Speaking of contracts since the constitution contained no mechanism for dissolution the founders did not believe it was possible. Certainly Madison, Hamilton and Washington didn't and spoke of the Continental nature of our new nation and its perpetual nature. "Unite or Die" was the watchword right before the revolution, correctly so. Andy Jackson, one of the stalwarts of States Rights, denied vehemently the right to secede.

When the South attempted to unilaterally abrogate this contract it was wrong and illegal. Even a marriage has certain forms required for dissolution or divorce can you honestly say with a straight face that men as careful as the writers would not have put a mechanism for secession in the document had they believed it acceptable?

It's not a contradiction at all. Article I, section 10, says that a state may not make anything but gold or silver legal tender (meaning that a state may not pass a law saying that you must accept repayment of a debt in paper money if you're unwilling to accept it). Congress, on the other hand, is not placed under any such restriction; it is authorized in Art I, sec. 8,to "coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof," without any mention of gold or silver. Thus, the power to establish paper money was one of those powers (like the power to make treaties, raise armies, etc.) which was given to the federal government but withheld from the states.

OK, riddle me this.

First, you are correct that Article 1 Section 8 gives the Congress the power to "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." There's no restriction on what they can coin into money. They could pass a law that says all United States coins will be pressed from meadow muffins and road apples. That would be entirely constitutional as far as Article 1 Section 8 goes.

Now, tell me where in Article 1 Section 8 the Congress is granted the power to make anything at all legal tender? Where does the Congress have the power to pass a law saying that you must accept repayment of a debt in paper money if you're unwilling to accept it. In short, please explain the constitutional foundation for the text "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" that's printed on every Federal Reserve Note.

You can't say that the founder's didn't know about the power to make legal tender laws. They placed explicit restrictions on states as to what they can make "tender in payment of debts."

You can't say that the power to "coin money" is the same as the power to "make tender". Clearly, minting coins and setting their weights and value is different from using the force of law to compel people to accept any form of "money" as payment for debts.

Further, if it were the same power, then Article 1 Section10 forbids states from coining money. Why does that section also contain a further restriction forbidding them from making "any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". If the power to make legal tender laws is part of the power to coin money, then the prohibition of states coining money would be sufficient. There would be no need to also prohibit states from making anything other than silver or gold coins "tender in payment of debts."

So, while the Congress can make paper money, no state has the power to accept it or to force people within their state to accept paper money for payment of debts. The states are explicitly prohibited from making anything other than gold or silver coins "legal tender." Further, the United States Congress was never granted the power to force either states or individuals to accept paper money (or meadow muffins or anything else) for payment of debts. The congress has no power to declare legal tender according to Article 1 Section 8. And, according to the 10th amendment, that means that the right is reserved to the states or the people.

Where am I wrong?

"... nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

Forgive me, but the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution - not amended as the convention was directed to perform. The state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations refused to even send a delegate - which according to Article XIII cited above rendered the convention illegal. Delegates from New York and other states left the convention once the learned that it was not to strengthen the Articles. Yet the founders allowed that once 9 states ratified the new Constitution a new government was formed. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison wrote, "[o]n what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it?" His response:

"The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed."

He also added this statement, "[A] breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void."

Secondly, the Articles did include the word "perpetual", not once but 5 separate occaisions. Have you ever thought about why it was purposely omitted from the Constitution? The Constitution was not meant to be "perpetual". Madison and Hamilton both referred to the new government as "experiments". Both referred to various national and state governments as experiments, more than 30 times in the Federalist Papers.

Regarding sovereignty, three states expressly reserved the right to resume the powers of self-government as a condition to ratifictaion - New York ("[t]hat the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness"), Virgina ("the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them") and Rhode Island ("[t]hat the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness"). North Carolina and Rhode Island and Providence Planatations refused to ratify until the Bill of Rights had been submitted for ratification.

The Articles are not binding, the states did retain their sovereignty that had not been delegated, and did reserve the right to withdraw from the union.

… the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution - not amended as the convention was directed to perform.

Agreed that the outcome of the Convention was not in accordance with what it was supposed to be when the Convention began.

Arguably however, the United States was formed as a perpetual union under the Articles of Confederation, and its government was reorganized under the Constitution leaving the perpetual union part intact. (More on this further down.)

The state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations refused to even send a delegate - which according to Article XIII cited above rendered the convention illegal. Delegates … left…

The cite notes a requirement for alterations to be agreed to in a Congress of the United States and then confirmed by the legislatures of every State. That is not the same as a requirement that every State have delegates at a convention.

Yet the founders allowed that once 9 states ratified the new Constitution a new government….

This implies that Congress was ignored in violation of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, but on 17 Se0, 1787, there was a "Resolution of the Federal Convention Submitting the Constitution to Congress" apparently by the delegates from 11 States and a gentleman from New York. Then came the "Letter of the President of the Federal Convention, Dated September 17, 1787, to the President of Congress, Transmitting the Constitution.". Later in the month came the "Resolution of Congress of September 28, 1787, Submitting the Constitution To the Several States." It would appear that Congress was not ignored.

"[A] breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void."

I would hope that such a breach would rise to the level of seriousness that inspired the Declaration of Independence. I would hope that a petty matter would not define such a breach. In any case, the fact that one party to a compact declares it violated and void does not mean that other parties to the compact must agree or that they can not seek satisfaction.

Secondly, the Articles did include the word "perpetual", not once but 5 separate occasions. Have you ever thought about why it was purposely omitted from the Constitution?

Yes, as a result of this thread. It's because the perpetual nature of the Union of States was not changed by the Constitution. You've already noted that the use of the word "perpetual" in the Articles of Confederation. Note that the aforementioned "Letter of the President of the Federal Convention, Dated September 17, 1787, to the President of Congress, Transmitting the Constitution." states "The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident-Hence results the necessity of a different organization."

Note that the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States says:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The perpetual union part carries through all this unchanged. The Constitution was a reorganization of the government of the United States, which was not intended to affect its perpetual nature.

The Constitution was not meant to be "perpetual"

I don't recall arguing that it was. The Union of the States was meant to be perpetual. You can experiment with the form of government without changing that.

Regarding sovereignty, three states expressly reserved the right to resume the powers of self-government as a condition to ratification

Not quite. Your cites talk about people not states. But it doesn't matter that much to me, because I don't recall arguing that there was no such right in accordance with the principles underlying the Declaration of Independence. My argument is that the remaining states may have some justification in opposing the move when some states decide to back out of the perpetual union to which they agreed.

And since this thread is not as dead as I thought it was, this (which is also posted on this very much related thread and applies here too.):

Bottom line? "It. Don't. Matter."

There have been a lot of learned comments about the Constitution, the law, the courts, precedent, history and so forth. But those comments assume that the matters at hand are conclusively settled well within the bounds of a complex, ordered, more unified than not state of Society. However, these matters are conclusively settled closer to the boundary of the state of Society, where things are less complex, less ordered, less (if at all) unified.

These matters are conclusively settled when one side or the other reaches for a can of "WhipYerButt" and vows to open it and vigorously apply the contents. If the other side does the same, things can get nasty. By this point, one or both sides may feel betrayed (possibly correctly) and therefore justified (possibly correctly) in going outside the constraints of the state of Society to settle the issue.

Or not. One or both sides may decide that the benefits are not worth the costs. One or both may give in, or both may seek a way around the impasse. After all, balance of power is inherent to our system and this implies the occasional confrontation that doesn't lead to full fledge conflict. (And the can of "WhipYerButt" is always on the shelf. in reserve.)

It's not just a balance of power between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of the Federal Government. It's a balance between States and State Factions; between the national government and the state governments, and between the citizens and all the rest of it if the citizens care to exercise their power.

That begs the question of whether or not the citizens care to exercise their powers. Every time a jury nullifies, citizens are exercising their power. Citizens exercised their power (by showing utter disregard for the laws in question among other things) and the Constitution was changed and Prohibition ended. They exercised their power again during the Civil Rights movement, and legal interpretations and laws were changed. (Isn't this all a form of informal nullification?) And much if not all of this has happened closer to the boundary of the State of Society, not deeper in the interior.

The answer to the question of whether or not the citizens care to exercise their powers is "sometimes, if they see importance in the issue." The American people have been underestimated before. They underestimated each other at the beginning of the War Between the States, when each side thought it would be over shortly. Many, not all of the Japanese underestimated them prior to WWII. Bin Ladin and company underestimated them.

The country did not start out perfectly. However, we were given a foundation from which we could strive for improvement and not stagnate in the status quo. And some of us are always engaged in that striving. And when those who are engaged can convince enough of the others to join them, the bottom line is: "It. Don't. Matter."

What say you Mr. Williams?

Ms Coulter?

My argument is that the remaining states may have some justification in opposing the move when some states decide to back out of the perpetual union to which they agreed.

The federalists disagreed. Consider some of the words of Madison, Hamilton and Jay, authors or the Federalist Papers:

"I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: ``FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS.'' - Federalist No. 2.
"[I]f these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies ... " - Federalist No 6.
"But why is the experiment of an extended republic to be rejected, merely because it may comprise what is new?" - Federalist No. 14.
"One branch of the new government is to be appointed by these legislatures; and under the Confederation, the delegates to Congress MAY ALL be appointed immediately by the people, and in two States1 are actually so appointed. Do they require that the powers of the government should act on the States, and not immediately on individuals? In some instances, as has been shown, the powers of the new government will act on the States in their collective characters. " - Federalist No. 40.
"We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction. The truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation. The misfortune under the latter system has been, that these principles are so feeble and confined as to justify all the charges of inefficiency which have been urged against it, and to require a degree of enlargement which gives to the new system the aspect of an entire transformation of the old. In one particular it is admitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission. Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE STATES, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed by the PEOPLE, and may be carried into effect by NINE STATES ONLY. " - Federalist No. 40.
"The moment of its dissolution will be the date of a new order of things." - Federalist No. 41.
"Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact ..." - Federalist No. 43.
"The mode of doing it may depend on ancient custom or legislative provision (in a new government it must depend on the latter)" - Federalist No. 81.
"One source indicated, is the multiplication of offices under the new government." - Federalist No. 84.
"[W]hich may be regarded as an equivalent for any additional objects of expense that may be occasioned by the adoption of the new system." - Federalist No. 84.

The old "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" (as styled in the Federalist Papers) were dissolved. Consider also that if the Articles were merely amended then all states would have to agree to changes, yet under the Constition only 9 were required - a violation of the Articles. Also note that the instant the 9th state ratified, the new union was formed, with the other 4 states remaining in the old confederacy. Two separate governments then existed.

"[I]t appearing that nine states had adopted the constitution of the United States lately submitted to Conventions of the people. And whereas a new Confederacy is formed among the ratifying States." - Elliot's Debates, p 293, 3 Jul 1788.

Kentucky was now not to ratify the Articles and be admitted into the old Confederacy, but ratify the Constitution and into the new union. Both existed at the same time.

"Congress think it unadviseable to adopt any further measures for admitting the district of Kentucky into the federal Union as an independent member thereof under the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union [the Articles of Confederation]; but that Congress thinking it expedient that the said district be made a separate State and member of the Union [Constitution] ..." - Elliot's Debates, p 294, (3 Jul 1788).

And as I've already stated, the word perpetual was purposely omitted from the Constitution. The "perpetual" union was abandoned to the ash heap of history.

Your quotes from Federalist No. 2, Federalist No 6, Federalist No 41 and Federalist No 43 when taken in context, seem to be parts of arguments aimed at those who were wavering to persuade them to maintain the perpetual Union but with a new government. (Wasn't that the point of the Federalist Papers?) I see them as supporting my argument, not countering it. True, they were not threatening the use of force. But when someone is wavering, the first response is often an appeal to their rationality and better nature, not a threat of force. (Particularly if you are unwilling to go that far.)

I don't see the rest of the quotes as applicable, although I may have missed something. In particular, note that the United States and The Government are not the same thing.

The old "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" (as styled in the Federalist Papers) were dissolved.

I have so much trouble with your phrasing that I don't know how to argue that. Suffice it to say that the States forming the perpetual Union were trying to come to improve their form of government.

Consider also that if the Articles were merely amended then all states would have to agree to changes, yet under the Constitution only 9 were required - a violation of the Articles.

I'll grant you that one. But they were trying to get rid of the Articles. They were not trying to get rid of the Union.

Also note that the instant the 9th state ratified, the new union was formed, with the other 4 states remaining in the old confederacy. Two separate governments then existed.

I never heard that before. Where was the meeting place of the second government? What form did it take (four states couldn't operate under the Articles since nine are required for some things.)?

I'm not acquainted with the quotes regarding Kentucky. I'll stipulate them for now, since I don't see that it affects my position.

The "perpetual" union was abandoned to the ash heap of history.

Not yet.

In the Federalist Papers (and other documents of the period) what we call the Articles Of Confederation were known then officially as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Just as they also wrote "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" where we simply write "Rhode Island".

The whole argument revolves around these points:

What is the "union"?
Were the Articles dissolved or merely strengthened?
If dissolved, was it done legally?
Could a state be a member of both governments at the same time?
Was the concept of a "perpetual" union carried over into the Constitution?

What is the "union"? According to the preamble, the union was "between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia." For that union to continue ALL 13 states must forever remain in the same government.
Article III. - "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare."
Were the Articles dissolved or merely strengthened? Dissolved. Once the 12th state seceded the Articles were gone. Until then they existed, albeit broken. To claim otherwise would have required ALL states to ratifty the changes- not 9. You don't strengthen something by weakening it. There was nothing in the Articles to prevent seceding from them, just as there is nothing in the Constitution preventing secession. Also, if the Articles were not dissolved, then the state sovereignty clause (Article II) would be carried over as well.
In Federalist No. 43, Madison was referring to the qualms surrounding the dissolution of the Articles, and protests by Rhode Island for "dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact". The "father" of the Constitution understood the Articles to be dissolved, not strengthened.
If dissolved, was it done legally? No. There never was an approved agreement that dissolved the Articles. Article VI stated that "[n]o two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled." What congress did approve was "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union."

That was not was the convention brought forth, which was why Rhode Island refused to send delegates, and why numerous delegates left early, and three refused to sign the Constitution, which BTW, renders Article VI claims of "Done in Unanimous Consent" quite ludicrous. The Federal Congress did not consent to a new government. And without unanimous consent, it couldn't be replaced.

Lastly, the Articles required changed to be "confirmed by the legislatures of every State". State legislatures did not approve the changes. State "conventions" debated and ratified the Constitution in each state.
Could a state be a member of both governments at the same time? No. Once seceded, the ratifying states were pleading for the abandoned states to join their new government. The reference to Kentucky being admitted as a state under the Constitution and not the Articles illustrates that both governments were existing, but now the new "union" was predominant. Also, once Rhode Island was the remaining holdout, the new "union" began threatening her with economic sanctions, immediate repayment of federal debts, etc.
Was the concept of a "perpetual" union carried over into the Constitution? "And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual." The Articles were perpetual - then they were dissolved. In Elliot's Debates (volume V) Alexander Hamilton noted that the word "perpetual" was not carried over into the new government. Attempts to include it failed.

The "perpetual union" had been dissolved. The founders abandoned the word "perpetual" in the Constitution. A new contract replaced the old. One that nowheres states that it is "perpetual".

Would you agree that every member of Congress that votes to pass a bill that violates the Constitution, every President who signs such a bill into law, and every Supreme Court judge that votes to uphold such a law, is ALSO in direct violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution?

As regards the Congresscritters and president, sure. They're in violation. The answer for a USSC justice is somewhat less clear, as Marbury vs. Madison grants the Supreme Court some leeway on the issue of whether something is constitutional or not. Still, the supreme court has a demonstrated history of violating the spirit of the Constitution.

But this has no bearing on the question of whether or not secession is a right reserved to the States, or whether an act of secession is also an act of insurrection.

My sense is that you're trying to suggest a case where the actions of the Federal Government are sufficient to justify secession on the part of individual states.

The situation there is not at all clear. Beyond the basic question of whether two wrongs can make a right, can you really separate "congress and the president" from "the states?" After all, the states are the ones who put those people in Washington in the first place. The states could theoretically get rid of them in the same way -- there are explicitly Constitutional ways of doing so that do not require secession.

The Declaration posits as a point of natural law that people have a right to insurrection against an unjust government. In the scenario you provide, it's possible that in some cases an insurrection might be justified.

Just as clearly, however, the Federal Government is explicitly empowered to deal with insurrections. The apparent desire among the pro-secessionists on this thread has been to convince us that there are some types of insurrection against which the government is not empowered to respond -- secession being one of them. IMHO this reflects a silly belief that one can mount an insurrection on the cheap, and without fear of a response by the rest of the Union one is trying to leave.

But this has no bearing on the question of whether or not secession is a right reserved to the States, or whether an act of secession is also an act of insurrection.

*My* question was whether you considered those federal people to be violating the Constitution, if they passed, signed, and agreed to unconstitutional laws. You agreed with me that those would indeed be violations of the Constitution.

I SHOULD have asked a follow-up question, "Do you think such violations of oaths to follow the Constitution are occurring?" I hope that you'll agree with me that they are indeed occurring on a massive scale. (In my opinion, the majority of federal laws are unconstitutional. I don't see how any person who can read could claim otherwise.)

Do you agree with this assessment, or not?

If you DO agree that federal government is massively violating the Constitution--such that essentially all elected and appointed federal officials are massively violating their oaths of office--why is it that you would care if a few people in a state legislature also violate the Constitution...especially if you do not even live in the hypothetical state in question?

But to return to YOUR question(s): ...of whether or not secession is a right reserved to the States...

I maintain there are more than just the rights of States that are involved.

1) It is my right, as a citizen of North Carolina, to be free from the state legislature voting to secede, due to the constitution of the State of North Carolina, which forbids secession.

2) Even if my state did not have such a clause in its Constitution, I would still consider it to be my right, under the 9th Amendment, to be free from my state legislature changing my citizenship without my permission. Assume, for example, that I lived in Hawaii, which I assume has no anti-secession clause in its Constitution. Even living in Hawaii, I would consider it my right as a United States citizen, to REMAIN a United States citizen...regardless of how my my state legislators voted regarding secession.

So even if states have a secession right, the individual citizens of that state ALSO have rights that I think would need to be addressed. ...or whether an act of secession is also an act of insurrection

Well, we have one fairly good precedent: Declaration of secession was most certainly was NOT considered an act of insurrection in 1860-1861!

Most Southern state legislatures had voted to secede from the United States MONTHS before Fort Sumter. In fact, if I had been alive and the governor of South Carolina at the time (and had my current viewpoint...which maybe isn't a reasonable scenario) I would have allowed Union ships to resupply Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter was a completely indefensible fort, without the other forts on shore that the Union had already abandoned. For those who doubt this statement, look at a map of Charleston harbor, with the other forts shown. Essentially, Fort Sumter was surrounded by higher-elevation forts on all sides.

To summarize my answers to YOUR questions:

1) I don't know whether states have a right to secede. I suspect they do (if they are not like North Carolina, with a state constitution that forbids secession). But I do NOT think that is the only question to deal with. I think The People have rights that need to be considered. Specifically, I think everyone in the United States has a right to not have his or her U.S. citizenship changed without permission. These individual rights would need to be addressed in any hypothetical secession.

2) No, based on past experience, a declaration of secession is NOT an act of insurrection.

Now, I hope you'll answer MY question...why would you care whether people in a state legislature (especially if it's not YOUR state) violate the Constitution, if you agree with me that essentially everyone in the federal government is already massively violating the Constitution?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.