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 effort 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

The Calhoun Institute