Secession: Is It Constitutional?

Is it constitutional for states to secede from the United States? Many have argued for and against it, but no real clear answer has appeared. To explore this topic, we must first define secession. In the political science section of the Colombia Encyclopedia, it defines secession as: “formal withdrawal from an association by a group discontented with the actions or decisions of that association.”

We have to realize that there is a difference between revolution and secession. Secession is defined as peaceful or formal withdrawal, whereas revolution is when you have to fight to be independent. Revolution is what happened to America when they broke away from Britain, and revolution is what happened during the Civil War after the Confederacy tried to secede. The circumstance of secession is different from the circumstances during colonial times. Before America broke off from Great Britain, they tried to change the corrupt government, but were not given representation to do so. That is why it was necessary for them to break from Britain. America didn’t secede from Great Britain, because their break off wasn’t peaceful. It was revolution. The same thing happened during the Civil War. We have to realize that just because mankind has a certain right doesn’t mean that right will be protected. It doesn’t really matter if secession is a God-given right to states, because if a nation is so corrupt that a state wants to secede, then that nation will not let that state secede, and revolution will happen. It is the job of governments to keep their people happy.

Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution states: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” It goes on to state many more powers that are not granted to the states, but to the Federal Government alone. All are powers regulated by a federal government. Some have argued that if it was constitutional for states to secede, the Constitution wouldn’t be so bold on what states couldn’t do. Anti-secessionists argue that by mentioning these powers, the Founders were trying to say that it was illegal for states to secede. The argument has come up that the Constitution doesn’t specifically mention secession, and because of this, there is no reason to assume that it is constitutional for states to secede; that the Constitution simply doesn’t give them that power.

Another argument that anti-secessionists have brought up comes from Article 7 of the Constitution. It states, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.” Before colonies became states and joined the United States, they had to enter into an agreement to become a part of the union by ratifying the Constitution. The people of the United States can leave whenever they want and move to Canada or Mexico or whatever other country or place they desire to reside in. However, many have argued that the states are bound to stay a part of the Union because they ratified the Constitution.

With this argument comes a quote by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase (it’s long, but it’s all very significant to the point he’s trying to make): “The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? ... When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”

What is the truth? It’s hard to say, but I’m not sure if these arguments are completely valid. Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution mentions powers not given to states, but these are all powers that are meant to be given to a federal government. The argument doesn’t make sense because if a state seceded, it would become a federal government in and of itself, and therefore it would have rights to exercise powers that are meant for a federal government. It is very difficult to know whether or not secession is constitutional because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so that is a bit of a mystery. It’s also very hard to decipher unalienable rights of states, because the circumstance of state rights is different from that of human rights.

The Declaration of Independence states: “…that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” 

Is secession constitutional? That is a question that I do not have the answer to. However, the question “can states secede?” isn’t as important as the question “should states secede?” I strongly believe that this nation was meant to stay together. In the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution, the Founders were trying to make it clear that they wanted to create a nation that fixed itself, not a nation that broke itself into pieces. Secessionists have argued that the Founders believed in the right to secession because they made the states sovereign. On the other hand, I think the reason why the Founders invested so much power in the states and the people was so that when the government became corrupt, the people could fix it. Because the people and the states in the United States are sovereign, the Founders didn’t want them to be able to break off from America—rather, to fix America when it became corrupt. These are the principles that our nation was founded on. 

Fifty-five men came together at Independence Hall in the summer of 1787 to create something that had never before been created—a nation that lasted. They came to create a nation that would stand the test of time; a nation with a government that was not corrupt and not oppressive that would allow for it to last for hundreds of years. That is exactly what they accomplished: they created a chosen nation that has remained intact up until even today. During Civil War times, Lincoln was trying to keep together a nation that was being broken apart. He said a lot about secession, and I don’t know what he believed as far as that goes, but I do know that it was his mission to keep this nation together, and that’s what he did. 

As we see America crumbling and the Constitution being stepped on, there’s one thing we have to remember: united we will stand, and divided we will fall. This is God’s chosen nation. This land is a free land. We can’t just escape America’s problems. We are here to fix them.