"The denial of the right to secede from a voluntary union is itself a primary justification for secession"
Project Status and How You Can Get Involved
Resources
External
ASP In-depth State and Region pages
| Alaska |
| Arizona |
| California |
| Cascadia |
| Hawai'i |
| New England |
| New Hampshire |
| North Carolina |
| South Carolina |
| Texas |
|
Vermont
|
Secessionist No. 3
A brief early history of secession in America
To the people of the various united States:
Many have and will falsely claim that secession is a concept alien to the
republican and democratic concepts and principles of our American heritage. This
is an assertion that rests far outside of reality and is dishonest to the
historical fact. The idea of any form of government existing perpetually without
the hope for or existence of mechanism for change is borne of an ideology that
is itself foreign and alien to freedom and liberty. Those that advocate such a
notion are often the unwitting agents of tyranny and oppression. It is the idea
that a government once created gains legitimacy and sovereignty greater than
those that created it that makes subjects of men that were once citizens and makes slaves of a free
people.
Our American history is filled with secession and movements toward political
autonomy. Most Americans understand and celebrate many of the aspects of this
fact. We understand that the early colonist to this land came seeking economic,
religious and political freedom. Their desire to remove themselves from the
clutches of a government that they felt did not represent their desires and
values is something we look upon with admiration. So too do we
celebrate the
actions of the Thirteen Colonies in their efforts to declare themselves free and
independent states. While most Americans understand that these were each efforts
to leave one form of government and establish another the connection between
those concepts and secession is lost on most Americans.
What then of the concept of perpetual Union on the American continent? What of
the “perpetual union” of United Colonies of New England” formed in 1643? This
union that claimed to be “firm and perpetual” formed of “free and independent
sovereignties” was dissolved in 1686. What of the withdrawal of nine states from
the “perpetual union” of the Articles of Confederation in 1787? What of the
movement in 1814 of several New England states to withdraw from the Federal
Union?
American history is often taught in such a way that the American Revolution is
viewed in terms of what the Continental Congress did. The idea that the war was
an American war fought by a central government supports the idea of the central
government having primacy in the American experience. The reality is that the
war was much more democratic than republican and sectionalist rather than
centrist. The majority of key victories won were accomplished by local troops
and the efforts individual colonies. The Continental Congress was nothing more
than an executive agent for exercising of the will of the colonies; and only
when the colonies decided to allow such. Significant is the fact that the treaty
of peace (1783) signed by King George III granted independence to the Thirteen Colonies
as free and independent states. There was
no negotiation with a
central government; no
legitimacy or sovereignty was granted to a central government.
Those that advocate the primacy of the central union will claim that sovereignty
is indivisible and since the British crown had sole sovereignty over the
American colonies that it was impossible for this sovereignty to then be
subdivided among several colonies. The centrist would say that
no matter the words used
to grant independence to the American Colonies the intent must have been to
grant sovereignty to one government. This premise is falsely placed based not
only on the treaty granting independence but also on the fact that the several
colonies acted independently before and after the formal recognition of their independence. The notion that
British sovereignty was indivisible is falsely claimed by the fact that during
the 17th Century sovereignty in the British Empire was indeed divided among the
parliament and the monarch. We are all familiar with the refutation of the
notion of the divine right of kings articulated so well by Milton and Locke. The
anti-secessionist point
of view that sovereignty could not have been divided is a throwback to this
arcane notion of the primacy of kings and their right to rule.
A familiar claim of the federalist is that the
Declaration of Independence was
the founding document for the United States. This line of reasoning asserts that
the various states gained their existence from the central government after
independence. This is a hollow claim, unsupported by the ample evidence to the
contrary.
Prior to the Declaration many of the colonies had deposed of their royal
governors and installed instead men of their choosing. Most colonies had within
their purview the right of colonial legislation. Years prior to the actual
declaration of independence most of the thirteen colonies had a fair measure of
self-rule. Virginia alone among the colonies declared her independence in May of
1776. The declaration in July of that year was merely a joint declaration of all
the thirteen colonies. It was not the declaration of a unified nation.
Further examples of the independence and sovereignty of the colonies prior to
independence include: During the Revolution New York and Vermont nearly declared
war on each other. This prompted Massachusetts in 1784 to declare her neutrality
in the matter. Virginia declared herself bound by a treaty with France long
before the Continental Congress decided to act on the treaty. These are acts of
independent and sovereign nation-states. These events proceeded the signing of
any compact giving birth to the United States.
The Articles of Confederation that gave rise to the first voluntary Union of the
various free and independent American states was written to be perpetual. Such
words are clearly used in that document. Centrist and anti-secessionist
will point to that and claim that even in the late seventeen hundreds Americans
viewed the central government as indivisible. It is interesting to note that the
Articles required a unanimous vote of all thirteen states to modify the terms of
the agreement. The abandonment of the government created by the Articles and
establishment of the government created by the Constitution was indeed an act of
secession. This is of course a point not clearly covered in history classes and
seldom understood by Americans.
The Articles themselves were clear on the matter of state sovereignty. Article
II states:
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, independence, and every power,
jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated
to the United States in Congress assembled.
Key items from Article II to consider are the terms “delegated: and “United
States in Congress assembled.” Powers were delegated to the central government
by the states; not surrendered. Furthermore the United States in this usage
refers to the states assembled by their representatives in congress. The idea
that the United States held a position as a viable and separate entity was
nebulous at this point. It is impossible to assert that the United States
existed as a separate entity since 1776 when this article is read clearly.
Lincoln clearly had his dates wrong in his "fourscore and....years" speech.
The Articles required a unanimous vote to modify the terms and conditions of the
compact. Originally only nine of the thirteen states ratified the new
constitution. The nine that ratified the Constitution and began operating under
a new form of government in fact seceded from the Confederation. The original
Union was dissolved and a new association was created. For over a year there
existed two forms of central government, one consisting of the states that had
joined the Constitutional compact and one of states that remained loyal to the
original Confederation. It is interesting to note that during this period ships
entering New York harbor (New York being a state that had joined the
Constitutional Union) from Rhode Island (a state that remained in the
Confederation) were listed as Foreign vessels.
It is obvious that the change from the Articles of
Confederation the Constitution was indeed a change of government; a
bloodless revolution really. The Articles were clear in the method allowed for
changing the terms; unanimous vote. The Articles also were clear in the expected
perpetuity of the compact. Neither of these concepts held much validity when
nine of the signatory states determined that it was in their best interest to
abandon the agreement and form a new type of government. The very Constitution
that the Unionist, centrist and anti-secessionist
claim such holy veneration for was itself a product of secession.
Secession is indeed part and parcel of American heritage and our historical
experience. Secession does not have to result in war. The ultimate decision as
to whether war will result from an act of secession rest with those that wish to
retain union and force others to remain in their club. This very notion of
forcing others to do things against their will seems the most undemocratic idea
of all.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
North American * Secession and Independence Movements
*Hawaii and Puerto Rico are obviously not part of North America, no offense intended
Active Secession Movements Around the World
One Nation Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution