The American Revolution and the Founding Principle of Secession

[mikegriffith1]

For those who might be interested, I've web-published an article that proves that the right of secession was a key principle of the American Revolution:

The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation: The Founding Principle of Secession

EXCERPT:

Perhaps no fact of history is better documented than the fact that the American colonists, including the founding fathers, believed that the British should allow the American Colonies to leave in peace, that they should not have to fight for their independence, and that the British use of force was immoral, oppressive, and contrary to natural rights (“unnatural”). However, few history books on the War of Independence make this clear.

In fact, most books on the American Revolution interpret the Declaration of Independence as merely invoking the “right of revolution,” that is, the “right” to use force to throw off an oppressive government. According to the usual portrayal, the colonists (also known as the Patriots) relied on the “right of revolution” as their justification for using force to achieve independence. However, even a casual reading of period documents refutes this picture.

There is a big difference between saying you are prepared to fight for independence and saying you should have to fight for independence. There is a big difference between saying you know you will risk death if you declare independence and saying you should have to risk death if you declare independence. Quoting statements where the Patriots said that they were willing to die for independence, that they knew they would have to fight to be free, etc., does not change the fact that they wanted England to let the Colonies leave in peace. They wanted to secede from England and believed they had a natural right to do so.

 

[rightwinger]

One of the primary grievances of our founders was “Taxation without representation”

The Southern states had full representation in Congress and electing a President.

WIth the election of Lincoln, they chose to ignore a lawful election and secede rather than accept the results.

 

[Lockback]

One of the primary grievances of our founders was “Taxation without representation”

The Southern states had full representation in Congress and electing a President.

WIth the election of Lincoln, they chose to ignore a lawful election and secede rather than accept the results.

Sort of like Minnesota and California today ...

 

[rightwinger]

Sort of like Minnesota and California today ...

?

 

[martybegan]

Sort of like Minnesota and California today ...

That's more similar to the Nullification controversy as opposed to actual secession.

 

[Manonthestreet]

that was settled in the 1860s

 

[mikegriffith1]

One of the primary grievances of our founders was “Taxation without representation”

Yes, that was one reason they wanted to peacefully separate from England.

However, there was a large voting block in Parliament that reliably defended the interests of the Colonies, and the taxation that the Colonies disliked was relatively mild by any reasonable standard.

The Southern states had full representation in Congress and electing a President.

WIth the election of Lincoln, they chose to ignore a lawful election and secede rather than accept the results.

Nope, only seven of the 11 Southern states initially refused to honor Lincoln's election. NC, AR, VA, and TN all declined to take part in the first wave of secession, recognized Lincoln's election, and kept their senators and representatives in Congress.

You should read some British books on the American Revolution. They make an interesting case that the Colonies had no complaints that justified a desire for independence.

Of course, sometimes the desire for independence has nothing to do with mistreatment but simply with a desire to go one's own way.

 

[Winston]

One of the primary grievances of our founders was “Taxation without representation”

The Southern states had full representation in Congress and electing a President.

WIth the election of Lincoln, they chose to ignore a lawful election and secede rather than accept the results.

First, taxes were a huge reason behind secession. I mean come on, the Civil War started when Fort Sumter was taken by the confederacy and stopped collecting tariffs. New York City was like, WTF, we won't collect tariffs either. It wasn't freeing the slaves that initiated a call to arms by the Federal Government, it was collecting tariffs.

The South had full representation and full participation in the election of Lincoln? Lincoln was not even on the damn ballot in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Is there any wonder those same states refused to support Lincoln. Almost all had seceded prior to Lincoln taking office.

It cost more to ship a bale of cotton from Athens, Georgia to Atlanta, by rail, than it did to ship it from Atlanta to New York City. The reality is a full three fourths of the wealth generated by the slaves flowed North, some estimates are as high as fifty percent for New York City alone, insurance, transportation. The truth is, the North had no problem with it as long as the money kept flowing, read newspaper editorials of the time.

 

[mikegriffith1]

that was settled in the 1860s

Yeah, at the point of a gun, just like the British tried to "settle" the issue when the Colonies declared their independence.

Just because the U.S. Government suppressed secession by force does not change the fact that the American colonists, including the founding fathers, believed in the right of secession.

Might does not always make right.

 

[Winston]

Yeah, at the point of a gun, just like the British tried to "settle" the issue when the Colonies declared their independence.

Just because the U.S. Government suppressed secession by force does not change the fact that the American colonists, including the founding fathers, believed in the right of secession.

Might does not always make right.

From 1800 to 1815, Massachusetts and other New England states threatened to secede at least three times. Over the Louisiana Purchase, the national embargo of 1807, and the War of 1812.

 

[mikegriffith1]

that was settled in the 1860s

I should add that it is clear that a substantial majority of the American people did not support using force to maintain the Union, as evidenced by the wide popularity of the Crittenden Compromise in both North and South. Even in the 1864 election, with the war effort going very well, an astounding 45% of Northern voters voted for Lincoln's opponent, whose running mate was Congressman George Pendleton, who ardently favored peace with the Confederacy. If Southern voters had voted in that election, Lincoln would have lost the popular vote by a huge margin, just as he did in the 1860 election.

 

[Unkotare]

Texas v White

End of discussion.

 

[rightwinger]

Just because the U.S. Government suppressed secession by force does not change the fact that the American colonists, including the founding fathers, believed in the right of secession.

They had detailed procedures in the Constitution for joining

Why no rules of secession ?

 

[eagle7-31]

From 1800 to 1815, Massachusetts and other New England states threatened to secede at least three times. Over the Louisiana Purchase, the national embargo of 1807, and the War of 1812.

More familiar with 1812 that would be the Fairfield convention where elements of New England protesting the War of 1812. Also in 1832 South Carolina made noises about leaving the Union over tariffs. But Andrew Jackson among things threatened to hang the SC state officials pushing the idea.

 

[mikegriffith1]

They had detailed procedures in the Constitution for joining. Why no rules of secession ?

Where were the rules for seceding from England? Yet, as I prove beyond any rational doubt, the founding fathers believed the Colonies had a natural right to peacefully separate from England. I notice you ignored this key point.

Where in the Constitution did the framers give the federal government the right to use force to keep a state from leaving the Union? Where in the Constitution did the framers say a state could never rescind its ratification of the Constitution?

James Madison specifically said the federal government had no right to use force against a state. Indeed, the framers specified that the federal government could not even intervene militarily in a state without the permission of either the legislature or the governor of the state, as I discuss in my article:

Proof that the Union Was Supposed to Voluntary

To believe you, we'd have to believe that the framers gave the federal government a right that they bitterly condemned the British government for claiming to have, i.e., the right to use force to keep a colony/state from leaving its control.

The "detailed procedures" for joining the Union were simply for each state to accede to the Constitution. So, the logical procedure for states to leave the Union would be to secede from it.

 

[Unkotare]

Texas v White

End of discussion.

^^^

 

[mikegriffith1]

Texas v White

End of discussion. ^^^

Texas v. White does not lay a finger on the irrefutable evidence that the founding fathers believed the Colonies had the right to secede from England.

Texas v. White was a blatantly partisan, political ruling that made no effort to address the clear evidence that the founding fathers believed in the right of secession and never intended the Union to be maintained by force. Secession was not even the main issue of Texas v. White, but the Republican-packed court chose to use it as a vehicle to denounce the right of secession. You might want to read Justice Grier's dissenting opinion.

I also suggest you read Dr. Marshall DeRosa's critique of Texas v. White:

Texas v. White: Constituting America

Do you have some intense ideological reason for opposing the idea that a state or colony should have the right to be independent if it so desires as long as it does not intend to harm the national government it wants to leave?

 

[candycorn]

Do you have some intense ideological reason for opposing the idea that a state or colony should have the right to be independent if it so desires as long as it does not intend to harm the national government it wants to leave?

Sure, the Federal government spends millions in Texas on highways, grants, national parks, and other projects. For Texas to decide, “Well, thanks but I think we’ll just go off an become our own nation” violates the spirt of those investments which were made with tax monies from other states.

 

[candycorn]

They had detailed procedures in the Constitution for joining

Why no rules of secession ?

Its good to see the right wing loons starting to talk about splitting the nation up again. I thought they would wait until Trump was out of office but it looks like they are getting just as disgusted as the rest of us are with him.

 

[rightwinger]

Its good to see the right wing loons starting to talk about splitting the nation up again. I thought they would wait until Trump was out of office but it looks like they are getting just as disgusted as the rest of us are with him.

They talk secession every time they lose
Just like 1860