The right to secede is not in the constitution.

[Madison320]

So I was arguing with my ultra progressive co-worker about the right to secede. Of course he doesn't think states have that right because it's not in the constitution. I kinda knew it wasn't but it caught me off guard and I'm never good at arguing stuff on the spot.

So I did some research because I knew I was right, just by basic logic. There's no way the states would've agreed to joining a union if the deal was they could never leave. So I did some research and here's my argument:

1. They had just successfully seceded from England. The whole Declaration of Independence was about the right to secede.

2. The US Constitution does not enumerate every right, there's no right to play hopscotch in there, as Walter Williams would say. But we have the right to play hopscotch.

3. There's nothing in the Constitution granting states the right to secede, but there's also nothing in there granting the Federal Government the right to stop secession with deadly force. You can't assume by default the Fed has a power UNLESS it's specifically granted. To assume the Feds have the power BY DEFAULT to kill as many citizens as necessary to keep a state from becoming independent is a helluva assumption.

4. Some states had specific language in their ratifying documents allowing secession.

5. There is various anecdotal evidence from comments from the founding fathers that they were totally against the idea of using force against a state trying to leave.


It's really disturbing to realize smart people actually believe it's ok for the government to stop secession with deadly force, just on a moral basis. I remember in high school when we were covering the civil war and the textbook made it sound like the south was an abomination and I kept thinking "but they just wanted to leave". Why did we have to kill them for that?

 

[ClaytonB]

It's really disturbing to realize smart people actually believe it's ok for the government to stop secession with deadly force, just on a moral basis. I remember in high school when we were covering the civil war and the textbook made it sound like the south was an abomination and I kept thinking "but they just wanted to leave". Why did we have to kill them for that?

Because how are you going to have central bank-administered Marxist globalism if you don't have a United billy-club to beat every other nation over the head with? We have to harness the entire nation to the Military-Industrial Complex or globalism will fail. And globalism is the only thing that matters. Every American should be begging for the privilege to be sacrificed to globalism. And don't forget that many of the best war-fighters come from the deep South, their deep convictions in faith and country hijacked by the snake-pit of mass murderers in DC for political purposes that the 18-year-old meathead recruits wouldn't understand even if they were told point-blank. There, they are deployed overseas to either be cannon-fodder or to unload plane-loads of bombs on the heads of clueless goatherds in Afghanistan. And don't forget splattering Afghan wedding parties where "mostly terrorists" get fragged by JDAMs. All for US national security, of course. I'm so glad our nation is very secure and we don't have a sieve-like southern border with battalions of illegals crossing, at will. But hey, at least we get globalism and that's the really important thing, in all this. Hell, if we have to send the Azov battalion to murder every last Ukrainian for the sake of globalism and enriching the Bidens, it will have been worth it.

And we wonder why this country is hailed as "The Great Satan" all around the world. Is it any wonder? "By their fruits you will know them." The fruits of this country are absolute, unqualified evil. We are surely under the judgment of God.

 

[Occam's Banana]

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, 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 the whole 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 the territory as they inhabit."

-- Abraham Lincoln, to the U.S. House of Representatives, 12 January 1848​

 

[CCTelander]

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, 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 the whole 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 the territory as they inhabit."

-- Abraham Lincoln, to the U.S. House of Representatives, 12 January 1848​

Methinks old “Honest” Abe must have changed his mind on that a few years later.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Methinks old “Honest” Abe must have changed his mind on that a few years later.

Funny how that works, ain't it?

 

[TheTexan]

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, 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 the whole 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 the territory as they inhabit."

-- Abraham Lincoln, to the U.S. House of Representatives, 12 January 1848​

It's kind of hilarious how hypocritical political leaders are on this issue. They realize it's such an important issue that it's enshrined in Article 1 of the UN charter.

But, like Lincoln himself, they pick and choose when to apply it, based on their own political expedience.

 

[TheTexan]

Methinks old “Honest” Abe must have changed his mind on that a few years later.

Or just twisted it into some abomination of the original concept.

Sort of like how Anthony Blinken said with a straight face that Russia was violating Ukraine's right to self determination. (While of course ignoring that the eastern regions overwhelmingly side with Russia)

 

[TheTexan]

It's really disturbing to realize smart people actually believe it's ok for the government to stop secession with deadly force, just on a moral basis.

It's the hallmark of a tyrant. The inability to allow someone to take their ball and go home.

I can respect people's differences on any other issue. But if a person who violently opposes secession, that person is pure evil and shall get no respect from me.

 

[Voluntarist]

Well, the current constitution's precursor was entitled The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between The States ... but then, there was hardly anything in them which threatened state autonomy enough to make them want to exit the compact.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Because how are you going to have central bank-administered Marxist globalism if you don't have a United billy-club to beat every other nation over the head with? We have to harness the entire nation to the Military-Industrial Complex or globalism will fail. And globalism is the only thing that matters. Every American should be begging for the privilege to be sacrificed to globalism. And don't forget that many of the best war-fighters come from the deep South, their deep convictions in faith and country hijacked by the snake-pit of mass murderers in DC for political purposes the 18 year old meathead recruits wouldn't understand even if they were told point-blank. They, they are deployed overseas to either be cannon-fodder or to unload plane-loads of bombs on the heads of clueless goatherds in Afghanistan. And don't forget splattering Afghan wedding parties where "mostly terrorists" get fragged by JDAMs. All for US national security, of course. I'm so glad our nation is very secure and we don't have a sieve-like southern border with battalions of illegals crossing, at will. But hey, at least we get globalism and that's the really important thing, in all this. Hell, if we have to send the Azov battalion to murder every last Ukrainian for the sake of globalism and enriching the Bidens, it will have been worth it.

And we wonder why this country is hailed as "The Great Satan" all around the world. Is it any wonder? "By their fruits you will know them." The fruits of this country are absolute, unqualified evil. We are surely under the judgment of God.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ClaytonB again.

Well, the current constitution's precursor was entitled The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between The States ... but then, there was hardly anything in them which threatened state autonomy enough to make them want to exit the compact.

Of course, that was a union that would have been much more suitable to have been a member. Not that this diminishes your point, but it really was barely a union at all... and obviously so, or the federalists wouldn't have been so eager to upend it.

 

[CCTelander]

Funny how that works, ain't it?

Yeah. I know i’M in stitches.

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/RAZ0RFIST/status/1676486545635966977

 

[A Son of Liberty]

No human being is obligated by the occurrence of his birth to be ruled over by other people. That's just an absurdity, and I don't need a piece of paper to tell me that it is or is not.