Secession: Constitutional Amendments And State Rights

The question of whether a state can secede through a constitutional amendment is a complex one. While the Constitution of a country may allow for amendments, it does not typically contemplate its own destruction or the dissolution of the government it establishes. In the context of the United States, secession refers to the voluntary withdrawal of a state from the Union, and this act has been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White (1869). However, the right to rebel or secede has been debated throughout history, with some arguing for it as a natural right of revolution. The Confederate Constitution, for example, allowed states to withdraw from the confederation, but this was not a right often exercised. Today, some states like California are exploring changes to their relationship with the United States, seeking greater sovereignty and autonomy, but it is unclear if full secession is a viable option.

Explore related products

American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup

$14.67 $23.99

Break It Up: Secession, Division, and the Secret History of America's Imperfect Union

$14.2 $30

Secession, State, and Liberty

$45 $63.99

Secession

$14.62 $29.99

Secession on Trial: The Treason Prosecution of Jefferson Davis (Studies in Legal History)

$26.73 $35

State Sovereignty and the Right of Secession: An Historical and Constitutional Defense of the Southern Position

$10.99

The US Constitution makes no provision for secession

The US Constitution does not explicitly provide for secession. While the Constitution may be amended, it does not currently contemplate its own destruction or the dissolution of the Government. Therefore, constitutionally, a state cannot secede from the Union.

The Federalists argued that the states would serve a vital role within the new republic, even though their national sovereignty was ending. They maintained that no right for a state to unilaterally secede from the United States existed under the Constitution. This view was also held by Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote in 1824 that ratifying the Constitution was not a precedent for future dissolutions of the Union by individual states or groups of states.

The Confederate Constitution, which established the Confederate States of America, was notably silent on the issue of states' rights to secede. This suggests that the Confederate government did not consider states' rights to be a priority, despite the fact that the preservation of slavery, which motivated the Confederacy's formation, was dependent on states' rights.

The question of whether a state can secede from the Union has been a topic of debate in the United States since its inception. Some argue that secession is a constitutional right, while others view it as a natural right of revolution. In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court ruled that unilateral secession was unconstitutional, but it acknowledged that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

While the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit secession, it is important to note that the concept of federalism and a perpetual union are fundamental to the United States' form of government. The Constitution imposes duties on the states and restrains the exercise of certain powers, implying their continued existence as sovereign states. The Declaration of Independence also articulates a "right to rebel" against an oppressive regime, further complicating the question of secession.

Secession may be morally justified by oppression

The Constitution of the United States makes no provision for secession. It does not contemplate its own destruction or the dissolution of the Government. However, it is important to distinguish between the legal right to secede and the moral justification for secession. While there may be no constitutional right to secession, it is argued that secession may be morally justified in certain circumstances, such as in the face of oppression.

The concept of secession has been a feature of American politics almost since the country's birth. Various states have threatened or aspired to secede from the Union, and these threats have often been accompanied by arguments justifying secession. One such argument is that of oppression.

Andrew Jackson, the 7th President of the United States, famously said, "Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms." This quote highlights the distinction between the legal and moral aspects of secession. While secession may not be a constitutional right, it can be seen as a revolutionary act, similar to the American Revolution, which may be morally justified when a group faces extreme oppression.

The idea of a moral claim-right to unilateral secession has been explored by philosophers and legal theorists. Cass Sunstein, for example, acknowledges that secession may sometimes be morally justified while arguing that including a right to secession in a constitution is incompatible with the principles of constitutionalism. The distinction between a liberty-right and a claim-right is also important. A group may be morally justified in seceding, but that does not necessarily imply that others are obligated to refrain from interfering with their attempt to secede.

In conclusion, while there may be no constitutional right for a state to secede from the United States, secession may be morally justified in certain circumstances, particularly when a group faces extreme oppression. However, the decision to secede and the potential consequences, including the use of force, are complex and multifaceted issues that require careful consideration.

The Confederate constitution was mute on states' rights to secede

The Constitution of the United States makes no provision for the secession of a state. It does not contemplate its own destruction or the dissolution of the government. While the Constitution may be amended, it does not recognise the right of a state to secede.

The Confederate Constitution, which superseded the Provisional Constitution of the Confederate States in 1862, was based on the United States Constitution. It was the supreme law of the Confederate States of America and remained in effect until the end of the American Civil War in 1865.

The Confederate Constitution is notably silent on the issue of states' rights to secede. This is surprising, given the importance of this right to the Confederate states. The Confederate government was never truly about states' rights, and it centralised power to a significant degree. The Confederate Constitution did include a preamble that emphasised the "sovereign and independent character" of each state, indicating a focus on states' rights. Additionally, it granted states certain rights not given to states of the Union, such as the right to impeach federal judges and officers living and working solely within their state.

The Confederate Constitution also added a clause explicitly protecting slavery in the territories, a key constitutional debate at the time. This clause stated that the institution of slavery "shall be recognised and protected by Congress and by the territorial government". The preservation and expansion of slavery were the primary motivations for secession and the formation of the Confederacy.

While the Confederate Constitution did not explicitly mention the right of states to secede, it is important to note that the concept of secession itself was a contentious issue in the United States, with some arguing for it as a constitutional or natural right. However, the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional in Texas v. White (1869), stating that revolution or consent of the states was required for successful secession.

Explore related products

Red State - Red County Secession

$7.2 $7.99

Secession Debated: Georgia's Showdown in 1860

$15.72 $28.99

After Secession: Jefferson Davis and the Failure of Confederate Nationalism

$17.06 $34.95

Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War (A Nation Divided: Studies in the Civil War Era)

$19.5 $22.5

Days of Defiance: Sumter, Secession, and the Coming of the Civil War (Vintage Civil War Library)

$4.99 $19.95

Secession to Fort Henry (SHELBY FOOTE, THE CIVIL WAR, A NARRATIVE)

$12 $24.95

The Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional

The question of whether a state can secede from the United States has been a feature of the country's politics since its birth. While some have argued for secession as a constitutional right, the Supreme Court has ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional.

In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court ruled that Texas was and remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union in 1845, despite later joining the Confederate States of America and being under military rule at the time. The court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States and that any attempt to do so was illegal. This ruling was based on the idea that the Constitution created an indestructible and perpetual union of the states, which could not be broken by secession.

The court's decision in Texas v. White was influenced by the argument that the national Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, creating a government of individuals rather than a confederacy of states. This meant that the government and the Union were intended to be indestructible and perpetual. Additionally, the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers to the states or the people, does not apply to unilateral secession because the Constitution prohibits it in Articles I, V, and VI.

While the Confederate constitution was silent on the issue of states' rights to secede, it is worth noting that the Confederate government centralized power to an unprecedented degree. This suggests that the preservation of states' rights was not their primary motivation. Instead, the primary motivation for secession was the preservation of slavery, as evidenced by the Confederate constitution's explicit mention of the right to withdraw from the confederation.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. White established that unilateral secession by a state is unconstitutional and illegal. This decision was based on the interpretation of the Constitution as creating an indestructible and perpetual union, as well as the understanding that secession is prohibited by the Constitution's articles. While some continue to argue for secession as a constitutional right, the court's ruling has set a precedent that shapes the modern interpretation of the Constitution as an "indestructible" union.

The Federalists argued that states had no right to unilaterally secede

The Federalists' stance on state secession was that states had no right to unilaterally secede from the United States. This view was in opposition to the Anti-Federalists, who favoured strong state governments and a weak central government. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not countenance secession, and that the formation of the Union signalled the end of states' national sovereignty.

The Federalists' argument against unilateral secession can be understood in the context of the formation of the United States as a nation. Each state, by entering the Union, had given up certain powers to jointly form a single nation. Therefore, it was argued that a state could not unilaterally secede because such an act would destroy the unity of the nation. This destruction of unity would be an offence against the entire Union, as it would be akin to saying that the United States is not a nation.

The Federalists also acknowledged that the new Constitution transferred national sovereignty to the American people as a whole, as evidenced by the phrase "We the people...". While they disagreed with Patrick Henry's assertion that this created a consolidated government, they maintained that the states would still have an important role within the new republic.

The debate around state secession was not merely theoretical, as evidenced by the Civil War and the Confederate states' secession to preserve slavery. The Confederate constitution, however, did not explicitly address the right of states to secede. Interestingly, it centralised power to an extent not seen in the United States until the 20th century.

While the Constitution does not explicitly recognise or deny a right of secession, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White (1869) that unilateral secession was unconstitutional. This ruling affirmed the understanding that the Constitution prohibits unilateral secession and envisages an "indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States".

Frequently asked questions