Secession: Is It Legal?

The question of whether a state can secede from the Union has been a topic of debate in the United States for centuries. While some argue that the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit secession, others, including James Madison, often referred to as The Father of the Constitution, strongly oppose this idea, stating that secession goes against the principles of federalism, which is a foundational block of the country. The debate around secession has often been linked to the preservation of slavery and the Civil War, with 11 Southern states attempting to secede, resulting in a war that claimed the lives of over 620,000 soldiers. Despite the lack of explicit language prohibiting secession in the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White (1869) that a state has no constitutional right to secede.

Explore related products

A Constitutional History of Secession

$38.88

Constitutional Law and Politics of Secession (Comparative Constitutional Change)

$36.86 $58.99

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

$26.73 $35

Creating a More Perfect Slaveholders' Union: Slavery, the Constitution, and Secession in Antebellum America (Constitutional Thinking)

$10.76 $59.99

American Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup

$14.67 $23.99

A Constitutional History of Secession

$9.95

The Tenth Amendment

The text of the amendment is as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, the Tenth Amendment explicitly states that the federal government's powers are limited to those granted in the Constitution. Anything not delegated to the federal government is left to the states or the people.

The question of secession is a complex and controversial issue in the United States. While some argue that states have a natural right to secede if the federal government becomes inimical to the rights and interests of the people, others, including James Madison, strongly opposed the idea that secession was permitted by the Constitution. The Constitution, with its emphasis on federalism and the permanence of the Union, suggests that secession would be in direct opposition to the foundational principles on which the country was built.

Secession as rebellion or treason

The question of whether secession is constitutional has been a contentious issue in the history of the United States, with some arguing for the right of states to leave the Union, while others consider it rebellion or treason. The Constitution itself does not explicitly address the legality of secession, leaving room for differing interpretations.

Those who view secession as rebellion or treason often cite the argument that the founding fathers intended for the Union to be perpetual and indivisible. James Madison, often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution," strongly opposed the idea that secession was permitted by the Constitution. In a letter to Daniel Webster, Madison discussed the difference between "revolution" and "secession," suggesting that secession would destroy the unity of the nation and constitute an offense against the Union. Similarly, President Andrew Jackson asserted that secession does not break a league but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is an offense against the entire Union.

The case of Texas v. White in 1869 also weighed in on the secession issue, with the Supreme Court declaring secession unconstitutional. However, this decision did not fully resolve the matter, as many Americans continued to question the fairness and completeness of the ruling.

The issue of secession came to a head during the American Civil War, triggered by the secessionist movement. The Union maintained that the Confederacy was never a sovereign nation and that a rebellion had been initiated by individuals within the seven secessionist states. The Southern states, by establishing a new constitution and government without consent, were seen as committing treason by "levying war against" the Northern states. However, some argued that Lincoln also violated Article III, Section 3 by invading the Southern states, becoming the aggressor and instigator.

The trial of Davis, the leader of the Confederacy, was delayed and ultimately dropped due to concerns about potential backlash and the complexity of the legal and political issues involved. While it would have been easy to prove that Davis committed treason by "levying war" against the United States, the defence argued that his actions were those of a non-citizen as his state had seceded, and treason is a crime of loyalty.

In conclusion, while the Constitution does not explicitly address secession, the interpretation that it is unconstitutional and equivalent to rebellion or treason has been supported by historical figures, legal cases, and the Union's stance during the Civil War. However, the complex nature of the issue and the ongoing debates highlight the challenges in definitively resolving the question of secession's legality.

Secession as a natural right

Secession has been a feature of American politics since its birth. While some have argued for secession as a constitutional right, others have framed it as a natural right of revolution. The Federalists, for instance, maintained that there was no constitutional right for states to unilaterally secede from the United States. This was demonstrated by New York's ratification, which implied that the Constitution did not support secession.

However, the idea of secession as a natural right has been explored by various thinkers. George Tucker, an influential jurist in the early republic, argued that the unanimous dissolution of the Articles of Confederation in 1789 set a precedent for future secession from the Constitution by individual states. He asserted that states had the right to establish a new constitution and form of government if they believed it was necessary, regardless of the consent of the rest of the Union.

The concept of a "natural right" is further elaborated on by some historians, who argue that the people have an inherent right to form a government that protects their mutual interests and happiness. If a government fails to uphold these rights and interests, the people have the natural right to change it, regardless of constitutional constraints. This perspective aligns with the belief that the Constitution is an agreement among the people, and if the government fails to fulfil its promises, the people have the right to take action.

Additionally, some have argued that if the rights of the people, as recognised by the Constitution, are not secured by the Government, and the people have no other means of redress, it is their natural right to separate themselves from their oppressors. This view was particularly prominent in the pre-Civil War era, with 11 Southern states declaring secession and forming the Confederate States of America due to their belief that their rights were being violated by the Northern states.

While the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession as unconstitutional in Texas v. White (1869), it acknowledged that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession. Nonetheless, the idea of secession remains controversial and complex, with potential moral implications and impacts on the distribution of wealth and resources.

Explore related products

Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (Constitutional Thinking)

$26.39 $37.99

Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers (Simon & Schuster Lincoln Library)

$5.36 $16.99

The Ordinances of Secession and Declarations of Causes

$2.99 $5

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$95 $345

Territorial Politics and Secession: Constitutional and International Law Dimensions (Federalism and Internal Conflicts)

$137.16 $149

The U.S. Constitution and Secession: A Documentary Anthology of Slavery and White Supremacy

$29.99 $37.99

Secession as a domino effect

Secession has been a contentious issue in the United States since its founding, and the question of whether it is constitutional for a state to secede from the Union remains a subject of debate. While some argue that there is no explicit prohibition of secession in the Constitution, others, including James Madison, known as "The Father of the Constitution", strongly opposed the idea, stating that it was in direct opposition to federalism, a foundational block of the country.

The debate over secession came to a head during the American Civil War, when eleven Southern states attempted to secede from the Union, citing states' rights and the preservation of slavery as their main reasons. This led to a bloody conflict that resulted in the deaths of over 620,000 soldiers and ultimately ended with the Union's victory and the conclusion that a state had no constitutional right to secede.

However, the idea of secession has persisted and even gained traction in recent years, with groups like Yes California advocating for leaving the Union after the 2016 election of President Donald Trump. While some may view this as a legitimate expression of grievance against an oppressive regime, others see it as an act of treason against a government grounded in popular sovereignty.

The potential for a domino effect of secession is a very real concern. If one state were to successfully secede, it could encourage others to follow suit, leading to the disintegration of the United States as we know it. This would be a direct challenge to federalism and the idea of a perpetual Union, as established in the Constitution.

While the Constitution does not explicitly address the right of states to secede, it is clear that the founding fathers intended for the Union to be perpetual and for the country to function as a single nation, not as separate entities. The potential for a domino effect of secession underscores the importance of upholding the principles of federalism and maintaining the unity of the nation.

Secession as a foreign nation

The idea of secession has existed in the United States since its founding. However, the Constitution does not explicitly permit or prohibit it. While some argue that the Tenth Amendment grants states the right to secede, federalists and legal experts disagree, citing the permanence of the Union and the impracticality of withdrawal.

The debate around secession often revolves around the interpretation of the Constitution and democratic principles. Some argue that the Constitution assumes a perpetual Union, and any attempt to secede would be considered a foreign nation, subject to the federal government's power over foreign nations, including the power to declare war. This view was supported by President Andrew Jackson, who believed that secession destroys the unity of a nation and is an offense against the Union.

On the other hand, supporters of secession argue that it is the natural right of the people to form and change their government to protect their rights and interests. They claim that if a government becomes destructive or fails to uphold the rights of its people, secession may be justified. This perspective was invoked by "We the People of South Carolina" in 1860 when they voted to secede from the Union, citing the right of a state to govern itself and the right of a people to abolish an oppressive government.

The question of whether secession is constitutional remains a complex and controversial issue. While there is no clear legal basis for secession, the interpretation of democratic principles and the natural rights of citizens play a significant role in the ongoing debate.

Frequently asked questions