Is the Right to Secede Really the Issue?

The question of whether the states have the right to secede from the Union has been circulating even before the two most independently minded states of Texas and Alaska joined the union. Since the question has recently been brought to me again, it seems an appropriate discussion, since it appears to be an enviable power that states seem to hope for and in that context we approach the conundrum: Do the states have the right to secede?

First, the Founding Fathers were quite aware of the right for a people to abandon their present form of government in the hopes of instituting another to preserve their God-given rights. After all, they did precisely that by seceding from England. That is the impetus behind the writing of the Declaration of Independence. The basic element is indeed a right. It is also a bloody one.

The Founders discussed at length the nature of the newly reformed Republic in the context of earlier problems with such a loosely formed Federation—and the Confederation was barely that. Problems such as balancing protection of the states enjoined, with their mutual independence. So, the Founders created a federation of states where the central government was obligated to protect the states as sovereign republican governments. The Constitution created a much stronger bond than the previous one under the Confederacy. It provided needed protection from invasion that left the early United States vulnerable and provided even better protection from neighboring states that would have a tendency of bullying smaller states. In return the constitution provided the central government power to collect revenue (that would be taxes) in order to facilitate those duties for, and on behalf of, the states.

Thus, the United States government is obligated to protect the body of states and protect the unity of states. This might not sit well with those who say, “Well then, what of the original right to secede— was it a farce?” Indeed not. But before further explanation it is fair to say that while many people will blame Abraham Lincoln for the bloodiest battle in U.S. history, the civil war—because he reasoned a state could not secede as it is part of the union and therefore the union as a whole owned the states, he was not the originator of that reasoning. The Founders were.

The Founders devised a governmental system that gave every opportunity to address grievances to the government. There are double-digit numbers of checks and balances to the U.S. Constitution. And the powers are clearly expressed. Whatever policies the Federal government creates must be applied only to those duties. The creative way in which those duties are dealt with can be varied and broad, but still within the confines of those duties, depending on the need but always staying within the intent of the Constitution. Among them is the duty of the Federal government to protect the right of states to a Republican form of government. (That one clause, alone holds within it three checks on the balance of power.)

This does not contradict the right to secede. The Founders knew that, since men and their fellows enjoin the basic right of freedom, including devising a new system of government or leaving it if the former is not viable, they had to ensure that there would be no reason or want to secede. They devised a government that allowed redress, improvements when wrongs were committed and modifications where needed in order to remove the need or want for secession, because they knew precisely how horrific and perilous secession was. Hence, the real question is not, “Do the states (and thereby their people) have the right to secede?” but rather, “should they secede and at what cost?”
The ultimate question is, “How wise is it to secede?”

Because a state wants to secede, does not mean any of the other states will welcome, encourage, or support the movement. In fact the opposite is likely to happen. Furthermore, there is no written right or process for secession in the Constitution, like there is for adopting a new state or territory. Furthermore, the Federal government itself is likely to vehemently object. And as we have seen of late where the federal government is suing states trying to adjust and repair the deliberate neglect of federal duties, it is more probable that the Federal government will physically and legally oppose secession. It would result in war. The history of secession shows it to be a bloody one. Is there a state willing to risk extinction? And if a state were to successfully secede, what then? As a, now unprotected country, that former state would bear the burden of it’s own protection—from other well-established countries and even possibly formerly friendly state-allies. Even a state the size of Texas or California would find it most likely impossible to defend itself against military might or an aggressive culture. In fact, the civil war came about not because there was no remedy but because the remedies were not honored. In the first place, the southern states broke an agreement—a compromise—set in the Constitution with the dissolution of slavery included. Without honoring the specially designed system that was focused upon unity, there was nothing left but a bloody battle for secession.

On the other hand, with all the powers appropriately applied, remedy, redress, and corrections in policy are all provided for and encouraged through Constitutional means. It isn’t that the Founders wanted to force the states into a governmental prison—tyranny-quite the opposite. It was that they wanted to provide every avenue to prevent the terror of such a violent way of solving a problem, to which they were personal witnesses in the Revolution. Thus, the only reason left to secede is simply the lack of honoring the system as designed. It would be far more wise and prudent to use all resources in restoring and using the system as designed and testing the system as such, before contemplating the alternative during a period of neglect.