"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. 5
The Illegitimacy of the 14th Amendment
Some federalist and anti-secessionist
will acquiesce to the logic and reasonableness of secession and independence
movements in theory. They will tell you that the point is moot as it pertains to
the nature of the United States government as that question was neatly answered
not only by the failure of Southern forces to retain independence in the 1860’s
but ultimately by the passage of the 14th Amendment.
The first point is frivolous. No
matter of principle has ever been settled on the battlefield. Might does not
make right. Might simply proves that might wins. It is the ugliest form or
democratic expression; we have more so we get to have our way.
The 14th Amendment is a different case entirely. Taken at face value this
amendment would seem to rob much of the steam from the idea of States’ Rights.
Specifically section 1
establishes United States
citizens for the first time. Hitherto citizenship rested solely in the body of
the states. The very act of stripping the states of their citizens and placing
restrictions on the states as to their treatment of the new class of citizenry
created under this act seem to remove from the people the power to express their
will through the sovereignty of their state of citizenship.
The 14th Amendment changed the very face and nature of the Federal government.
History lessons seldom term the
enactment of this amendment as a transition from one form of government to another
but that is exactly what occurred. The premise of the central government now
having citizens in the various states and expanded power to manage and govern
those citizens created a very different form of government. The
enactment of the
14th Amendment was in fact the final act in the death of the old Constitutional Republic
and the birth or a new form of government.
No longer did states
retain the authority for self rule on items specifically reserved to them in the
Constitution. No longer
were the desires and wishes of the states considered relevant. Individuals
became the property of the federal government. Soon the idea of direct taxation,
forced federal military service and a myriad of other encroachments appear.
In very real terms the War Between the States was a rebellion. It was a
successful rebellion and resulted in a new form of government coming to power.
Our history books teach that the Confederacy was rebellious against
Constitutional principles. It was in fact the reconstructionist that succeeded
in laying to rest the old Constitutional principles and the old Republic and
replacing it with a strong federal government of their liking. They forces of
the Federal Union and their masters in the Republican held Congress and White
House were the revolutionaries. The enactment of
the 14th Amendment was the mechanism that gave teeth and power to this new
government.
While federalist may wave the 14th Amendment and shout that this is the end of
secession we hold up that document and proclaim it to be the primary
justification for secession. It is on its face a bad amendment that contradicts
the very principles of States Rights and checks on the power of the Federal
government that were so carefully crafted into the Constitution. If this
amendment were ratified in the ways and means properly set aside in the
Constitution we would disagree with it and wish to see it amended. However, this
amendment was not ratified; it was enacted contrary to all proper principles. It
is in fact illegitimate.
When this amendment was proposed there were thirty-seven states in the Union.
This was of course during reconstruction and the thirteen states of the
Confederacy were for all practical purposes not part of the Union.
To avoid the indelicate position of declaring these states outside the Union when a war had just been fought to
declare it impossible for them to leave the amendment was sent to all
thirty-seven states. (What a peculiar position for the Republicans to find
themselves in. If the states could leave the Union then they could not
vote on the Amendment. If they could not leave the Union then they could
vote and would vote not to ratify it. That is what one might rightly call
a conundrum.)
In 1866 the states answer on the amendment was received in Washington. Of the
twenty-eight states needed to ratify twenty-two voted for and thirteen voted
against. The amendment was thus rejected according to the guidelines set forth
in the Constitution. Ah yes, but this did not fit well with the notion of
reshaping the Federal Union held by the Republicans. The answer, kick the
Congressional delegates from the dissenting states out of Congress.
Dissatisfied with this outcome the Congress; composed solely of representatives
from the states that supported the amendment, declared that the thirteen
Southern states that comprised the Confederacy were outside of the Union.
It is ironic that by legislative fiat the Congress accomplished what the Lincoln administration declared illegal just
five years before. By ejecting the thirteen Southern states from the Union,
the amendment was easily able to be ratified by the remaining states.
Six-hundred thousand Americans died fighting over the issue of whether a state
could leave the Union. In the name of political expediency a radical
congress settled the issue squarely, a state could leave the Union.
Easily ratified is probably too strong of a term. After Congress’ action to
eject the South from the Union Ohio, New
Jersey and Oregon rescinded their ratifications of the amendment.
The South was faced with an impossible choice at this juncture. After being
denied the right to leave the Union on their own volition the Federal Congress
had ejected them and required acceptance of the new Constitution as a
prerequisite for reentry. Faced with the option of perpetual occupation and the
hope for partial autonomy each of the states eventually accepted the
Constitution that was forced upon them, complete with the loss of their citizens.
Under such circumstances where is the consent of the governed? Where is the
contract between the government and the people? Where is the de jure
government? How can this be legal? The 14th Amendment created a
very different Federal government with greatly expanded powers, this is a
de
facto government. It exist outside of law.
Clearly, the amendment was never
legally ratified; rather it was enacted and then forced upon an occupied people.
Coercion and democracy do not make good bedfellows.
The issue of the illegitimacy of the 14th Amendment is not one of North versus
South. This is an issue of Constitutional principles and the legitimacy of
government to govern. It is an issue that goes to the very heart of a government
under the law. The methods used to enact this amendment and the tactics
of extortion used to force the acceptance of states and people opposed to it are
pages torn directly from the history of any empire. The (il)legitimacy of the
entire federal government rest on this action.
This is not a government of the people nor has it lived up to the original
compact that gave it birth. The illegal and illegitimate enactment of the 14th
Amendment is justification number one for secession and the establishment of a
form of government of the people, under law and respectful of the sovereignty of
the various states. .
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