Was Secession Treason?

Daveblack ^ | June 30, 2003 | DaveBlack

[stainlessbanner]

America was founded on a revolution against England, yet many Americans now believe the myth that secession was treasonable. The Declaration of Independence was, in fact, a declaration of secession. Its final paragraph declares inarguably the ultimate sovereignty of each state: [T]hat these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved of all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have 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. Following the Declaration of Independence, each colony established by law the legitimacy of its own sovereignty as a state. Each one drew up, voted upon, and then ratified its own state constitution, which declared and defined its sovereignty as a state. Realizing that they could not survive upon the world stage as thirteen individual sovereign nations, the states then joined together formally into a confederation of states, but only for the purposes of negotiating treaties, waging war, and regulating foreign commerce. For those specific purposes the thirteen states adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781, thus creating the United States of America. The Articles of Confederation spelled out clearly where the real power lay. Article II said, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” The Article also prohibited the secession of any member state (“the union shall be perpetual,” Article XIII) unless all of the states agreed to dissolve the Articles. Six years later, the Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia, supposedly to overhaul the Articles. The delegates in Philadelphia decided to scrap the Articles and to propose to the states a different charter—the United States Constitution. Its purpose was to retain the sovereignty of the states but to delegate to the United States government a few more powers than the Articles had granted it. One major difference between the two charters was that 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 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. After the election of Thomas Jefferson, the Federalist Party in New England was so upset that for more than ten years they plotted to secede. The party actually held a secession convention in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814. Although they ultimately decided not to leave the Union, nobody really questioned the fundamental right of secession. In fact, the leader of the whole movement, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering, said that secession was the principle of the American Revolution. Even John Quincy Adams, who was a staunch unionist, said in an 1839 speech about secession that in “dissolving that which can no longer bind, we would have to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.” Likewise, Alexander Hamilton said, “to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised.” These men, and many others, understood that there was a right of secession, and that the federal government would have no right to force anybody to remain in the Union. Some people see the Confederates as traitors to their nation because many Confederate leaders swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when joining the United States Army. However, at that time people were citizens of individual states that were members of the United States, so that when a state seceded, the citizens of that state were no longer affiliated with the national government. Remember, the Constitution did not create an all-powerful national democracy, but rather a confederation of sovereign states. The existence of the Electoral College, the Bill of Rights, and the United States Senate clearly shows this, and although it is frequently ignored, the 10th Amendment specifically states that the rights not given to the federal government are the rights of the states and of the people. But if states do not have the right to secede, they have no rights at all. Lincoln’s war destroyed the government of our founding fathers by the “might makes right” method, a method the Republicans used to quash Confederates and loyal Democrats alike. After the war, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was arrested and placed in prison prior to a trial. The trial was never held, because the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Salmon Portland Chase, informed President Andrew Johnson that if Davis were placed on trial for treason the United States would lose the case because nothing in the Constitution forbids secession. That is why no trial of Jefferson Davis was held, despite the fact that he wanted one.  So was secession treason? The answer is clearly No.

[stainlessbanner]

for discussion

[msdrby]

history ping

[hobbes1]

Yes. It Was. And the Author convieniently leaves out the salient points of the DOI.

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies Presented by the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Oh, yes, an P.S. it was under pain of Treason that the Founding Fathers pledged their "Lives, Fortunes, and "....(their)"Sacred Honor"....

The Winners write the History Books.....Sorry.

[Arkinsaw]

The Winners write the History Books.....Sorry.

The debate is not 'who wrote the history books', the debate is 'was secession treason'.

Also, just because battlefield winners write history books does not automatically make them the winners in the arena of logical debate.

[SAMWolf]

Bump. IMHO, no.

The Southern States weren't trying to overthrow the Federal Government, they wanted to leave the Union.

[STONEWALLS]

...thanks Stainless!.... those who have opinions about secession will have a chance to participate first hand in due time.....wars of secession and partition are a global reality.....I expect they will come here too....

Good luck to all!

Stonewalls

[TheBattman]

I don't know about anyone else, but I fail to see how your quoting of the Declaration of Independence proves your view that Secession was treason.....

But even IF the DOI had a prohibition against succession by states (which I do not see), The DOI is not the document by which our country is oranized - that would be by the Constitution.

[PatrioticAmerican]

First, the DOI isn't the binding agrement to form a union.

Secon, read the article.

[azhenfud]

Stainless,
The Articles of Confederation of the United States also explain there is a joint agreement among the several sovereign states and that each reserve and retain all rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution, AND that no rights may be abridged without the consent of the United States Congress assembled....

Here is the introduction and first three articles:

"The Articles of Confederation

---

Nov. 15, 1777

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union 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.

I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

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, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

Treason is defined best depending upon which side of Liberty one stands.

Regards,
Az

[hobbes1]

I DID read the article.

The author sets up the DOI as justifying secession.

The Declaration of Independence was, in fact, a declaration of secession. Its final paragraph declares inarguably the ultimate sovereignty of each state:

If it's final paragraph is inarguable, then so is its content, declaring the Legitimate Reasons for such an endeavor.

Secondly, Secession, technically is in Violation of Several parts of the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
Refresh my memory, what did the sesseionists call their "Country" ?

And all of Section 3.

Section. 3.

Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

[sandydipper]

Not only do states have the constitional right to secede they have an obligation to secede from an opressive government which many feel is our present condition.

[TheDon]

Well said. I have yet to hear any of these neo-confederates list the "train of abuses" as in the DOI.

[azhenfud]

Do you think England could have had similar proclaimations worded to discourage or prevent "insurrection" against the Royal Crown? Maybe we can find it, too....

[hobbes1]

I see you have a predeliction for the AoC, however, the States entered into a Union....They Did not like Democracy on a grander scale, and threatened to take their ball and go home, Violating the Agreement they entered.

[hobbes1]

ROTFL...No, the only abuse they cite is the enormous spanking they took From Sherman,

But then....

On November 12, 1864, Sherman marched out of Atlanta toward the Atlantic coast. Tracing a line of march between Macon and Augusta, he carved a sixty-mile wide swath of destruction in the Confederacy's heartland.

That was AFTER THE FACT....

[sheltonmac]

*ping*

[Servant of the Nine]

Oh give me a break.

The South Lost.
History is written by the winners.
QED: Secession was treason.

The quality of the precedents and arguments on either side are meaningles.
They ceased to matter when the first shot was fired.
All that matters is that we (The South) lost.

Join back up with the real world.

So9

[stainlessbanner]

I still think it matters; especially given the recent spur in constitutional discussions on FR threads around viable options for restoring our republic in the wake of two SCOTUS rulings.

In studying the past, we chart our course for the future.

[JohnGalt]

Reading the hysterical, lawyer like responses that attempt to disprove the essential premise: the Delcaration of Independence is a secessionist document, demonstrates that we are winning in the marketplace of ideas.

[sheltonmac]

I have yet to hear any of these neo-confederates list the "train of abuses" as in the DOI

How's this for starters?

Should We Consider Updating the Declaration of Independence?

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another; a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to make that separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations reduces them to despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patience of these fifty states; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their system of government. The history of the present federal government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all working toward the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

It has refused to abide by the strict guidelines of the United States Constitution, and has instead decided that it alone will decide what is necessary for the public good.

It has forbidden state legislatures to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, and has allowed the federal judiciary to strike down countless state laws as unconstitutional, in clear violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.

It has refused all states the proper control of land within their respective borders and has instead used its power to confiscate even more property.

It has enacted legislation, on issues ranging from alcohol consumption to the ownership of firearms, for the sole purpose of forcing states and individual citizens into compliance with its wishes.

It has unlawfully persecuted, under various administrations, citizens and organizations for opposing its invasions on the rights of the people.

It has continued to pass laws affecting campaign financing and election procedures that have only served to exclude ordinary citizens from the political process.

It has endeavored to prevent states from taking steps to curb illegal immigration and has refused to protect the sovereign borders of this nation.

It has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing to equally apply the laws it passes to members of the federal government.

It has allowed judges to become dependent upon their own political ideology without any regard for the Constitution.

It has established a multitude of new bureaucracies, and has sent out swarms of officers to harass the people.

It has maintained, in times of peace, standing armies both here on our shores and overseas.

It has effectively rendered the military independent of and superior to the civil authority.

It has subjected us to things foreign to our Constitution, giving its assent to burdensome acts of legislation:

For forcing states to quarter illegal immigrants.

For protecting them and refusing to deport even those convicted of serious crimes.

For implementing protectionist measures that have limited our ability to engage in free trade with all parts of the world.

For imposing taxes, hidden or otherwise, without our consent.

For threatening to deprive us, in times of perceived crisis, of the benefits of trial by jury.

For federalizing offenses that should remain under the jurisdiction of the states.

For implementing a foreign policy that has this nation engaged in costly and unnecessary entanglements overseas.

For taking away state sovereignty, abolishing federalism, and altering fundamentally our entire system of government.

For superseding state legislatures, and investing in Congress the power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever; including areas such as employment, health care, education, and housing, among others.

It has waged war against citizens of the United States by using armed troops to enforce unconstitutional laws.

It has denied states the control over valuable natural resources within their own borders.

It is, at this time, engaged in armed conflict overseas without a formal and constitutional declaration of war.

It has turned businesses into government agencies, forcing workers to report the "suspicious" activities of their fellow citizens to authorities.

It has succeeded, through its interventionist policies, in funding and arming enemies of the United States of America.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A government, whose character is marked by every act which may define a tyranny, is unfit to be the government of a free people.

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by Congress, the president, and the judiciary to extend an unwarranted jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of the founding of our nation. We have appealed to their sense of justice and fair play, and we have appealed to the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They have been deaf to the voice of justice and of reason. We must, therefore, hold them as we hold the rest of mankind-enemies in war, friends in peace.

We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do solemnly publish and declare, that these states are, and of right ought to be, free and independent; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the existing federal government, and that as free and independent states, they have full authority to reassume those powers guaranteed to the states and the people by the Constitution. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

[hobbes1]

You are correct. It is a Secessionist Document. However, The Difference between Secession and Treason, was Victory on the Battlefield SOmething the South wqs unable to attain.

Further, The Long List of usurpations, in the DOI, since you are content to vouch for it's legitimacy, is hardly matched by the 'We don't like this game, so we are taking our ball and going home' treason movement, as practiced by the Confederacy.

Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 was quite clear.

[Scenic Sounds]

So was secession treason?

You need to run this by Ann Coulter. ;-)

[hobbes1]

One would be hard pressed to disagree...LOL

[Blood of Tyrants]

The Winners write the History Books.....Sorry.

What a stupid, asinine answer. Just because it was written doesn't make it true. Or do you believe everything the the hildebeast's book, too?

Secession is of course, a legitimate, peaceful solution when people can no longer agree. It always has been. To argue otherwise would be to say that it was illegitimate for the colonies to seceed from Great Britian.

[sweetliberty]

"The point was raised in the 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."

That seems to say it all right there.

[JohnGalt]

From a legal perspective your case is sound (not saying its correct) but some still believe in a higher justice-- not saying you don't, just that I heard your position in public school and college, and have still sided with the South.

I suggest you look at it from a political perspective and the situation in Virginia Feb-April 1861 and tell me that the Lincoln Administration were men of peace, rather than worshippers of Mars.

Son of the Union, Son of the Confederacy, Son of the Revolution regards,

[vetvetdoug]

This issue is addressed in a book written by Alfred Bledsoe, Was Jefferson Davis a Traitor or The War Between the States. Bledsoe spent the entire Civil War in England researching the only other copy of our Constitution so that he could defend Davis and the South in the case Southerners lost and were persecuted by a court of law. Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, knew that he would have to meet Bledsoe in a court if any of the former Confederates were charged with treason and he knew that the North would lose in an honest court of law. Ask yourself, why wasn't any of the secessionists ever tried for treason or prosecuted in a court? One knows that the radical Northerners would have liked nothing better than to hang Southerners but they didn't, why? The answer is in the knowledge of Chase and Bledsoe.

[hobbes1]

One knows that the radical Northerners would have liked nothing better than to hang Southerners but they didn't, why?

That...is utterly ridiculous. The more simple fact is, that it is grievously unstatesmanlike to rub salt in the wound AFTER the successful prosecution of a war, against those you would presume to rule...

(Remember the Admonition of Lord Cornwallis to Col. Tavington about the manner in which he is prosecuting the war....contained in The Patriot..)

[hobbes1]

Oh, Yes, and Inversely, you'll notice the Confederacy did not take their claims to the Supreme Court.

Because as has been pointed out, the Constitution Expressly Forbids what they did (Art1.Sec10 Clause1.)

[TheDon]

Cute, but neither accurate, nor relevant to the discussion at hand. The citizens of the US get the government they vote for. When we no longer have the right to vote, then we'll dust off your submission for a new DOI.

In the meantime, I'll keep waiting for the neo-confederates to supply the "train of abuses" the Confederates used to justify their rebellion against the lawful authority of the US Constitution.

[XRdsRev]

As an aside, taking this issue one step further, could treason and legitimate rebellion have existed at the same time within the Southern secession movement ? For example, it could be argued that that members of Southern legislatures and militias from states that had legitimately voted to secede using proper political means were engaged in a rebellion seeking to divest themselves and their state from ties to the Federal government.

Whereas members of legislatures and militias from states like Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri who served in the Confederate forces, were from states that never seceded from the Union were possibly guilty of treason because they not only sought to dissolve their state's association with the Federal Government but to overthrow the legally elected (pro Union) governments in their respective states including the Federal representatives of such.

[Friend of thunder]

I still think it matters; especially given the recent spur in constitutional discussions on FR threads around viable options for restoring our republic in the wake of two SCOTUS rulings.

Are you suggesting that Secession is, or could be, a “viable options for restoring our republic”?

[azhenfud]

"The citizens of the US get the government they vote for. When we no longer have the right to vote, then we'll dust off your submission for a new DOI."

Billbears,
Could I impose upon you for your thoughts on this classic statement?
I thank you in advance...
D.V.
Az

[JohnGalt]

Jacobinism is the statist kool-aid, and simply carries no wait as an argument. It lacks even an emotional appeal to 'the chords of memory.'

What choice did Virginia have in Feb-April 1861? Side question: were you cheering for the ATF April 19, 1993? (Of course you weren't.)

You attempts at pan-Southernism and pan-Confederacy as if it was a monolith of agreed upon opinion illustrate an intellectual laziness that even us Northern Yankees can see right through.

[JohnGalt]

That is an excellent point, and if you had a chance to read Thomas Flemings "When This Cruel War Is Over" (2000, NY Times Best-seller) you got a glimpse of blatant (by legal definition) treason running up to officers in the Union army who had trouble fighting for the butchers of the North.

War is the destroyer of civil society and throwing around legalese to explain this or that is so unappealing.

[sheltonmac]

Cute, but neither accurate, nor relevant to the discussion at hand.

It is relevant in the sense that states still have as much right to secede now as they did in 1861.

As far as enumerating specific grievances, no such list is required. However, if it's specificity you want, check out a few of the Declarations of Causes of Secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html). Yes, slavery was an issue, but the bigger issue was the preservation of states' rights.

[azhenfud]

"Are you suggesting that Secession is, or could be, a 'viable options for restoring our republic'?"

Stainless borrowed it.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson

[PatrioticAmerican]

“Article 1 Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
Refresh my memory, what did the sesseionists call their "Country" ?”

First, a state is a state in regards to those state within the union. Those states that have left the union are no longer covered by that clause. The clause relates to foreign entities.


“Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

Just what does that have to do with secession? That relates to dividing or joining states to form new states. That was placed in their to prevent a hostile takeover by forming states with greater powers.

“Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

Again, this covers only states belonging to the union. It does not prevent secession.

[azhenfud]

In the Articles of Secession, as ratified by the Southern states, states' rights and sovereignty were mentioned numerously whereas "slave-holding" was used only to specify which states were being abused by the government.

They can be found here:

http://www.17thmississippi.com/artssec.html

[hobbes1]

“Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States,

Even the Document linked by sheltonmac above, acknowledges the "Common territory of the Republic" placing the area of the United States under a degree of congressional control.

Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

To begin with a State is a political entity by definition, and in forming the Confederacy, the states were violating the Constitution.

Continuing, That having been said, the Fully half of the states that seceded were Created by the Union.(in the Louisiana Purchase)...

Now, If you wish to argue about the original ratifiers, that might be one thing, However, Every state West of the Mississippi had it's Freedom from France negotiated and Paid for , by the Union Government....Now I am not saying they should have remained without rights, but surely they were more securely bound to the Union than say, the Southeastern states...

Further, As the document linked above by sheltonmac clearly lays out, there was no long list of usurpations and horrors, they were losing at the table of Democracy, and didn't like it.

[billbears]

"The citizens of the US get the government they vote for. When we no longer have the right to vote, then we'll dust off your submission for a new DOI

No we get the government the power brokers in Washington tell us we're going to have. Any respective citizen that doesn't get the nod from one of numerous political national organizations, even if the role is strictly for one state, gets thrown out like yesterday's trash.

Never mind the fact the original intent of the Founders was to be that we would never vote for Senators, except through voting on our state legislature

[TheDon]

Soooo..... I take it you can't supply any "train of abuses" either?

[hobbes1]

Actually, the "Long List of Abuses..." occurring prior to Shermans Heroic March to the Sea is over losing Electoral Power....Read the waaaaaa lists linked above.

[stand watie]

NOPE. it was a fight for LIBERTY.

end of story.

free dixie,sw

[CyberSpartacus]

It is not rediculous. It is a fact that radical northerners did want to punish the south, and did so whenever possible. Whether you like it or not, the simple fact is, slavery is wrong but the south was right.

[sheltonmac]

Do you think England could have had similar proclaimations worded to discourage or prevent "insurrection" against the Royal Crown?

I think there certainly are parallels between President Lincoln and King George:

Imagine King George ascending to the throne of England shortly before the Declaration of Independence was signed and making it his first order of business to address his subjects and argue his case for the preservation of the kingdom. The following is an excerpt of what King George might have said. If it seems a little familiar, it should. The bulk of this text was lifted directly from Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address. A few words have been altered so that it may fit into the context of a brewing conflict between a king hoping to keep his empire intact and a group of secessionists seeking to form their own independent nation:

I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Laws of Parliament, the Kingdom of Great Britain is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our Parliamentary Laws, and the Kingdom will endure forever-- it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if Great Britain be not a government proper, but an association of colonies in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it-- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Kingdom is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Kingdom itself. The Kingdom is much older than the Colonies. It was formed, in fact, by Divine Providence. It was matured and continued by the practice of feudalism. It was further matured, and the faith of all the Barons expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Magna Carta in 1215. And, finally, in 1689 by ordaining and establishing the English Bill of Rights to which its drafters pledged to "most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever..."

But if the destruction of the Kingdom by one or by a part only of the colonies be lawfully possible, the Kingdom is less perfect than before, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no Colony upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Kingdom; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any Colony or Colonies, against the authority of the Kingdom, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that, in view of Parliament and its laws, the Kingdom is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as Parliament itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Kingdom be faithfully executed in all the Colonies. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the loyal subjects of the Crown, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Kingdom that it will lawfully defend and maintain itself...

...In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Kingdom will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Kingdom, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and loyalist grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Kingdom, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

(from Lincoln and George: An American History Paradox)

[sheltonmac]

Thanks for the link!

[hobbes1]

but the south was right.

So these guys keep saying.

When you point out, that the DOI lays out far greater injuries, they say the DOI is not a ruling Document, the Constitution is.

When you point out that the Constitution prohibits the States from Seceding, They say, The Constitution doesn't apply because the States seceded.

So in extraordinary circumstances, you have the Battlefield, and I guess all of the Baghdad Bobs still fighting this conflict, will say that doesn't matter either...

Just open your wallet, take out a 5, and tell me what you see.

[TheDon]

"It is relevant in the sense that states still have as much right to secede now as they did in 1861."

Now that is something we can agree on! They had no right then, and no right now! ;)

"As far as enumerating specific grievances, no such list is required."

So you say, and no doubt it would injure your argument to attempt such. That is why one never sees such a list today. When one attempts to cloak the rebellion of the Southern States in the DOI, you had better have such a list ready.

Georgia

"The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment"

Mississippi

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery"

South Carolina

"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States."

No matter how they, or anyone today, try to cover it up, the Rebellion was always about slavery. Slavery, slavery, slavery. And you can see in the South Carolina admission, they aren't so much rebelling against abuses in the past, but those they envision in the future.

It is ironic that the path they chose led to the destruction of the institution of slavery that they were fighting to preserve.