THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: There is a lot of talk these days about the Constitution of the United States. Indeed some have enshrined the Constitution as if it were some sort of Holy Writ. In fact, not only does the U.S. Constitution have nothing to do with the founding of the United States, but it wasn't even our first form of government! The 'Articles of Confederation' (1777 - 1787) was the first document outlining the function of American government. That document was eventually replaced by the Constitution which has since served as our SECOND attempt at self-governance. Neither of these documents, not the Constitution nor the Articles of Confederation, were the founding documents of the United States. That designation is reserved for one document alone -- 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 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.
Signing of the Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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; 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...
-- The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
 |
| Thomas Jefferson |
As in the case of the thirteen British colonies in America, each of them had their own local state government. Likewise, these state governments frequently sent representatives to a regional 'Continental Congress' which in many ways functioned as a precursor to an independent government. Yes, the principle America was founded on was the notion that people (organised in the states they reside) have the right, to pull away (secede) from one form of government, become independent, and even reorganise under another form of government of their own making. It was a revolutionary idea to say the least, and one the king of England did not agree with. After a long and bitter war with the British crown, the king signed thirteen separate agreements to end all hostilities with each of the thirteen colonies. It was called the Treaty of Paris, and it was signed on September 3rd, 1783. After all the platitudes about 'freedom' and 'liberty' as well as what that means to various people, in the end, America was founded on just one thing -- the right to secede!
Some eighty-five years later, something happened that turned all of this on its head. It was called the American Civil War. We can debate the circumstances and causes of the Civil War ad nauseum but it will not scratch the surface of this issue. To debate the causes of the Civil War is to miss the point entirely. The point is; do states have the right to secede or don't they? Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers said 'YES' and they fought a war to defend it. Almost a generation later, as the New England states were seriously considering secession from the rest of the United States over the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson was asked what he thought of New England secession. He responded with the words 'they will all be our children' pointing out that they had the right to leave America, and even if they did start their own country, they would do so in the spirit of the American Revolution and remain Americans by common heritage. New England secession never happened, but the movement itself, along with Jefferson's response to it, underlines the position of America's founding. People (organised in the states they occupy) have the right to lawfully secede.
 |
| Abraham Lincoln |
So which is it? Who is right? Is it Jefferson or Lincoln? It has to be one or the other, but it cannot be both.
Before addressing this issue in the comments section below, please keep in mind this is not about the alleged 'causes' or 'circumstances' leading up to the American Revolution and American Civil War. Any comments disparaging one side or another, concerning these alleged 'causes' or 'circumstances' will likely be moderated. This is solely about the principle enshrined in the document above. DO STATES HAVE A RIGHT TO SECEDE OR DON'T THEY????
5 comments; post here:
Simple answer is Jefferson was right as he was there at the founding, not Lincoln.
I believe the sovereign states have the right to secede. The union is voluntary, the power of the constitution was given to the central government by the states. Secession was the final straw action when in debating with the central government, other arguments fell on deaf ears.
Not only did the New England states planned secession, so did New Jersey, who proposed a central states confederacy, New York City wanted secession from New York State and the United States when so they could continue trading with Southern ports.
It has been said, though, that the 14th Amendment has negated the right of secession. I am, at this point, not qualified to debate that point one way or the other. Hopefully you have more insight than I do on this.
Yes they do. To deny any state or group of states to right to secede is to deny that the thirteen colonies had any right to secede from Great Britain. If Lincoln was consistent, he would have petitioned Great Britain to be let back in after winning the Civil War.
CP, whether the 14th Ammendment nullifies the legal process of secession I cannot say, but it does not (indeed cannot) nullify the legal RIGHT to secession. That's because rights come from God, not the Constitution, or any man-made government. Even the Deist Thomas Jefferson could see that.
Therefore, whatever the 14th Amendment says on secession, and there are many who disagree on its interpretation, it does not matter. Let's suppose however the 14th Amendment indeed does nullify the legal process (not right) of secession. Then we must conclude that the Constitution of the United States has indeed nullified the Declaration of Independence and the whole American Revolution!
Of course the logical fallacy in that is that it's self cancelling. For if the Constitution has indeed been made to nullify the Declaration of Independence, than it automatically nullifies the very government that Constitution was designed to create, because you see, Americans don't have the right to govern themselves. Then of course if the Constitution does nullify the Declaration, then we must assert the Constitution has no authority anyway because Americans don't have the right to govern themselves. Thus the US Constitution doesn't have the right to nullify anything, because it's illegitimate!
Do you see the endless logical loop this creates? It's sort of like Sola Scriptura.
I am going to Play devil's advocate from what I have studied of American government, law, constitution and articles of Confederation. Argueably put, the American Revolutionary war was the test to the notion of the 'right to Secession'. Americans considered themselves to hold a right to secede (for whatever reason) and their mother nation, England, objected to it. Therefore the test of the validity of secession was war.
The Foundation of Secession movement in America is essentially thus: "You have the right to secede, as long as you win." The American Civil war was essentially a second test of this right to secede, the South sought to secede, the mother Government objected, and a war was fought.
Had the secession movement not taken on a subsequent legal basis as a result of the declaration of Independence, the right to secession would be a moot point and assume the same status secession is viewed in other parts of the world (that being secession equates rebellion)
Speaking as an outsider who lives in a land of differing laws and traditions, I can only comment from said perspective upon your own laws and traditions, but it seems clear to me, that if America is founded upon not tolerating subjugation (in whatever form, benign or malign), so too does it not suffer insubordination
I would say, especially since I do have many friends from the American south, any and all talk of 'secession' in America being in any regards being 'peaceful' is a fool's discussion. America would not tolerate such insubordination, and the only reason people took Texas seriously any time it threatened secession from the Union is because it is the only single state with the infrastructure and might to follow through on that threat come hell or high water, other states would have to band together to match the same intimidating power.
Whoever wins the debate on secession in America, I can say he will not hold an olive branch in his hand as much as he will grip a fasces. And Sir Knight if you truly hold the South has the right and the might to follow through on its desire it had better be the one holding the Fasces.
Sergeant of the Cheif, thank you for your thoughts. I've heard this before and I have to admit, it provides a very accurate observation of American history. Indeed if what you say is true, than in America anyway, might makes right, and that's the end of the story.
I would submit that while this may be how things ended up, it was never what America's founding fathers intended, and if I'm right in saying this, than the nation they founded was hijacked within a couple generations of its founding.
I would also submit that it is possible for a people to grow and mature, even when their government has not. I think this may be the case with the American people today, as most would not stomach another Civil War. There have been cases in world history of peaceful secessions and there is nothing stopping that from happening in America too.
Alas, the whole question may soon be a moot point anyway, since it is likely the US federal government will eventually collapse under its own weight, spawning the creation of multiple smaller nations in North America. Still yet, the question is an intriging one. Did America give up her reason for existence in the Civil War? I think so. I also think she can never regain that reason for existence until she finally allows of her children what she herself demanded of her mother.
Post a Comment