Secession, Part II

Heard Mike Church say on the radio today, concerning Louisiana's beef with the Feds over the oil spill cleanup and prevention efforts... "If at first you don't secede... try, try again." I'm sure Jindal is about at that point right now.

However, as I said, Jambo and I talked about the legality of secession, historically and in a contemporary sense, and have concluded that it is NOT a legal option, even if the people of a particular State or States vote in referendum to remove themselves from the Union (as the 11 Southern States did in 1861-1862).

In 1869, the SCotUS heard the case of Texas v White and decided that the only manner in which a State may remove itself from the Union is by revolution or by the consent of all the States. Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a member of Lincoln's Cabinet) gave the majority opinion, and summed it up nicely. (A bit long, but worth the read, I think)

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that "the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence," and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. "

I'm of the opinion that Justice Chase was correct. An indissoluble Union, made more Perfect by the Constitution, means removal from the Union is beyond any State to decide, and can only be decided by ALL the States (presumably gathered in Convention) or by successful revolution (which the Civil War was not).