the legality of secession

7/30/2019 The Legality of Secession

1/3

The Legality of Secession

There are those who see the current phenomenon of secession petitions to be illegal, improper,or unconstitutional (or a combination of these three and many other adjectives). Asserting such

merely magnifies the ignorance of those making the claims as they are apparently unaware of

some facts which ought to be brought forth in any discussion of the right of secession.

The original thirteen colonies of what became the United States of America were bound by law

to the authority of the King of England and his government. Those who fought the War ofIndependence were not constrained by any belief that they did not have the right to move out

from under that authority and establish their own form of government. They did not believe that

secession was illegal or not an option for them to consider. As a matter of fact, they

specifically stated within the Declaration of Independence:

. . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the

same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their

right, it is theirduty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guardsfor their future security. (Emphasis added.)

Therein, lies the justification for seceding from the British government. One does not hear the

British claiming that the US is not a lawful entity and, therefore, should be returned to the Crown

on the basis that the secession of the colonies was unlawful. By what right does one man declareanother to be forever constrained to subject himself to the rule of the former? It was the

American revolution which legitimized the right of secession. And a right it most certainly

remains.

Consider, now, the admission of the future states into the Union. Nowhere in the Constitution of

the United States is it declared that any state which is admitted to the Union has forsworn itsright to leave that union if the operation of the government is so anathema to the people of theaffected state (or any portion, thereof) that they believe it . . . necessary for one people to

dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the

powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature'sGod entitle them . . . Some argue that the Civil War settled, for all time, the question in regard

to the right of secession. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to riseup and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them

better. This is a most valuable a most sacred right a right, which we hope and

believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which thewhole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion

of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of

their territory as they inhabit. Abraham Lincoln

The key points of Lincoln's comment made during his campaign and prior to his presidency

are the words power and can. In other words, Lincoln believed that those who have the

greater power (military force) can (have the right) to impose on those who do not possess equal


2/3

or greater power, the form of government the greater power determines to be for their (those

lacking such power) benefit, regardless of the desires of those upon whom that government is

imposed. He got what he desired - forcibly imposing a strong, central government on those whodid not desire such a form of government. However, he and his war did not settle the question.

For when a group of citizens, regardless of their numerical size, desire to throw off the tyranny of

a government, acts and enforces their desire on that government, they are according to Lincoln wholly within their rights. In Lincoln's way of thinking it is whether they have the power to

impose their separation on the existing government and, whether they can do so i.e., defend

their separation which determines whether their efforts are legitimate, or not. A most deceitfulway to declare secession to be legitimate. The loser, in Lincoln's words, bears the illegitimate

title of rebel for having attempted to exercise a most sacred right, because he did not posses

the power to impose his separation on the existing government.

Let us go further. Are we to accept the claim that secession is illegal? If so, do we not, in order

to remain intellectually honest, require that all those states which left the former Soviet Union be

forcibly returned to their former government if they do not do so, voluntarily? Those states do

not have the power to enforce their separation on Russia. They can revolutionize, but canthey enforce the separation? Not likely. Therefore, those who argue that secession is illegal, etc.,

must also, of necessity, argue that those former Soviet states are, in their current form, illegal, aswell.

Let us go the final step. The United States is a signatory to the UN charter as are all of themembers of that august body of well-meaning, form before substance frauds. Having signed

the charter and pledged massive payments in support of UN sanctioned operations (which,

usually, means that US taxpayers foot the bill), we are founding members of that organization.

Have we ceded our sovereignty to the UN? Do we not retain the right to withdraw, at ourdiscretion? Or, are we forever trapped into membership within an organization which almost

daily demonizes the US? Forget all of the business aide we have provided. Forget all of the

technological aide we have provided. Consider only the humanitarian aide we have providedover the years. Meaningless. So, with that consideration, that the US is evil in the eyes of the

members of the UN, do we not retain the right to free ourselves of its tyrannical agenda? What of

Agenda 21? are we legally, if not morally, required to implement its atrocities within our ownborders? For those who are naysayers to the idea of secession, I assert you have no

understanding of the rights of man nor of the legality of secession. You have no understanding

and, therefore, no right to retain your citizenship in the US since you deny to others what you

and they have inherited. You should exit the borders and run, don't walk, to the nearest nationwhich supports your ideas.

Finally, it must be asked whether those opposed to the right of secession believe that they havethe right to enforce a from of government on a people that find that form of government to be

destructive to their rights and beliefs that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by

their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuitof Happiness[?] If such is the case, that they do, indeed, claim to possess the right to impose a

form of government on others, then by what right do they claim the benefits bestowed on them

by those who have bled and died to defend the freedom of the individual? They have no such

claim. It is they who are the rebels. It is they who are the frauds. It is they who are the liars. It is


3/3

they who are not patriots.

In conclusion, to argue that there is no right of secession is to argue that might determines right.It is to argue on behalf of those who would impose their beliefs and demands on those who are

less powerful and unable to prevent the imposition. It is to argue for tyranny. It is to argue that

the Constitution does not exist or is no longer of any import. It is to argue that rights are grantedor removed by men who have the power to grant or remove them. It is to argue that God has not

granted His creatures the right to self-determination. It is to argue that man is God. THAT is

unacceptable and it will not stand.

The Swamp Fox20Nov12

the legality of secession

Documents