Replies

As for states not having the right to secede, that is obvious, as the United States was created with the ratification of the Constitution hence only a legal dissolving of the same could allow a state to become independent. The states that voted for secession in 1860-61 could have followed the legal route in calling for a Constitutional convention or for an amendment to the Constitution allowing them to secede. But, they chose the route of rebellion and war instead.

The USC is silent on the issue of secession. It would not have been ratified had that provision been in the original USC in 1787.

The US Senate tried to make secession illegal by legislation, which was voted down, I think this was 1860.

At the time Virginia and New York ratified the Constitution (the two largest and most influential states) they declared that they did so with the understanding they could secede. This was acceptable to the remaining states, and the Constitution was ratified with that understanding. The Tenth Amendment was inserted into the Bill of Rights to make future secession unnecessary. Furthermore, if secession was illegal, why did New England seriously consider it in the War of 1812, and why did the Mass. Assembly pass an article of secession at the time Texas’ admission to the union? Why was a textbook in use at West Point’s government class that taught that secession was legal?

After the Civil War, there was talk of a trial for Jefferson Davis for treason. The Chief Justice of the Supreme court advised against a treason trial for Davis because, since secession was legal, in his opinion, Davis would be acquitted and the South would win in court what it had just lost on the battlefield.Secession was only declared illegal by the Supreme Court about 1867.

Talk about historical revisionism. Jeez!! This is not to say that the South should have seceeded or that it would have been a good thing had they been successful. But secession was most definitely not illegal.

The USC is silent on the issue of secession.

The original 13 colonies ratified the Articles of Confederation, in which they pledged "Perpetual Union."

The opening line of the Constitution of the United States, which superceded the Articles, begins, "WE, THE PEOPLE, in order to form a a more perfect union.... "

From a contract law standpoint, there is no right to succession for the original 13, nor for any state that joined the union thereafter (although an argument can be made in the completely unique case of the Lone Star State.)

“The USC is silent on the issue of secession.”

The Articles of Confederation explicitly created perpetual union. The Constitution was silent on the issue because it was no longer an issue.

“It would not have been ratified had that provision been in the original USC in 1787.”

Nonsense. Every state that ratified the USC, had ratified the AOC, with included an explicit surrender of their right to unilaterally secede.