One of the topics associated with nations and nationhood that has been in the press recently is secession. Secession is when a nation or people sever the associations with the nation that they were formerly associated with. The issue has been so distorted that many Americans falsely associate secession with rebellion or treason. It is often viewed as a heinous sin or rebellion.The Bible verse, “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft” is often spouted by those disapproving of secession. Those referring to the verse forget that the Kingdom of Judah was formed from a secession out of the Kingdom of Israel. Both Kingdoms were legitimate authorities.The practice of associating secession with rebellion only became popular during "reconstruction", when US authorities took an active role in deciding what churches could preach on regarding political issues. Prior to the War of Northern Aggression, pastors in America were free to address political and religious issues. After the war, they were limited to religious topics only.

Secession is a legal political option that seeks to pull away from the central government. It does not seek to overthrow the government or rebel, only to pull away. It is not a move to overthrow the whole government, the people are excercising their right to leave their former association. Secession is not limited to states, it also occurs with counties, cities and neighborhoods. The concept of secession is often associated with nullification.

Nullification occurs when a political body nullifies a law imposed on it from another authority. The party nullifies the action, measure or law imposed from the higher authority. Nullification can be softcore, which is when the nullifying body chooses not to enforce the law or hardcore, which is when the nullifying body chooses to cancel out the law or measure.

Is secession rebellion?

The States seceded from Britian and formed the United States. The Republic of West Florida seceded from New Spain, and Texas seceded from Mexico. The United States government accepted these realities, yet some legal thinkers balked when the Southern states expressed their desire to secede.

Many church leaders supported secession. In the 19^th century, preachers were not as tolerant as many are today. Preachers spoke openly on the political and social issues of their day. When they did not approve of something, they said so. When they saw something as sinful or rebellion, they openly proclaimed it. The only pastors that equated the Southern secession with rebellion were the northern ones. The Southern churches and the denominational bodies approved secession as a legitimate way to correct the wrongs then present in the United States. At that time, many of the churches in the Southern States believed the church had the responsibility and authority to address religious issues and current issues of concern to their congregations The pastors believed they had freedom in their pulpits, which they freely excercised. The church leadership often condoned and supported the secession of the Southern states.

The Southen Baptist Convention, in Savannah on 13 May 1861, passed the following resolutions.

"Resolved, That we most cordially approve of the formation of the Confederate States of America, and admire and applaud the noble course of that Government up to this present time...

"Resolved, That we most cordially tender to the President of the Confederate States, to his Cabinet, and the members of the Congress now convened in Montgomery, the assurances of our sympathy and entire confidence. With them are out hearts andty cooperation"

It was not only the theologians and preachers that supported secession. The best minds in the legal profession supported the secession option as well.Secession was the only option left short of war after sectional animosities prevented the legislative, executive and judicial options from settling the issues. One section of the nation refused abiding by Supreme Court rulings. Congress was deadlocked and the executive was elected with only 39% of the popular vote.

The experts and texts that dealt with Constitutional law saw secession as a legitimate political action. The Constitutional law text used at West Point (William Rawle's, A View of the Constitution) used to train military officers also approved of secession. Secession was often threatened by the northern States in the early years of the American union, and Massachuestes actually passed lesislation for secession in response to the Congressional approval of the annexation of Texas.

Alexander Stephens, who was a known legal scholar at the time of the War Between the States said:

"the real object of those who resorted to Secession, as well as those who sustained it, was not to overthrow the Government of the United States; but to perpetuate the principles upon which it was founded. The object in quitting the Union was not to destroy, but to save the principles of the Constitution"

Even after the War between the States, the United States government has given recognition to nations that seceded from another nation such as Norway, Kosovo, Belgium, Bangladesh, Croatia, Anguilla, Slovakia, Slovenia and Pakistan.In many of these cases, the United States was actively involved in the independence and recognition of the legitimacy of those nations. So in terms of international law, the United States with its actions has actively supported secession as a political option.

Is secession illegal?

William Rawle's commentary on the Constitution clearly identifies secession as a legal and viable option for nations. Rawle's legal commentary was used as a textbook for Constitutional law at West Point prior to the War of Northern Aggression. After the war, the copies of Rawle's book were no longer in circulation. Although some legal scholars often scoff at Rawle, the US Supreme Court has cited Rawles work in a recent ruling (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008), which indicates that what Rawle said had some merit and that he can be regarded as a legitimate source to cite for legal opinions. It would be inconsistent to allow Rawle to be considered a proper citation for some issues and improper for the others. 

In order to silence secession questions in the time period immediately following the War of Northern Aggression, a court ruling was needed. Most of the critics of seceseeion make reference to Texas v. White, Those critics claim that the Supreme Court case of Texas v. White (1869) made secession illegal. A close look at the ruling shows that it did not rule secession illegal, the Supreme Court justice, Salmon Chase only put increased government regulations on it to make it more difficult. He never made the act illegal or treasonous. Since many people only read someones interpretation of the ruling rather than the rulings themselves, they often do not comprehend the full ruling in such a legal case. Although Justice Chase determined that Texas did not legally secede, he did not rule secession out as a viable political option.

The case only reviewed how Texas seceded and refused consideration of the legality of its annexation. The two issues were intertwined in that the secession of Texas involved the nullification of the illegal actions involved in joining the Union of States. The opinion on the secession issue was not a unanimous one. Despite the cherry picking of issues to examine in distilling its verdict on secession, the justice's opinion mixed legal concepts from the Constitution with the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were deemed perpetual, whereas the Constitution was of limited duration. By mixing the two, Justice Chase determined that the Constitution was deemed perpetual, although its authors did not make it that way.

“…the Union is indestructible and not dissoluble by acts of a state, the government or the people. Secession could only occur in a revolution with the approval of all the states”-Justice Salmon Chase.

Despite Justice Chase’s opinion, a portion of the State of Virginia was removed and then used to create West Virginia in violation of the US Constitutional law, which stipulated that no state can be formed from another one. This act of creating West Virgina was also done without the permission of the State of Virginia. 

Despite Justice Chase's opinion in the case, the Supreme Court was not unanimous in supporting his position. In formulating his opinion, Chase combined principles from the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. Although they were seperate and distinct documents, his piecemeal support for the opinion rendered was taken in a hodge podge manner from the documents. He took the idea of the perpetual union from the Articles of Confederation and applied it to the Constitution. It did not matter that Texas was not part of the political body that existed at the time of the Articles or ever aceded to them, Justice Chase wanted to use them to prove his point.

What is the history of secession?

Historically, secession has been an option for political independence. Rather than rebel and overthrow the whole government, secession seeks to seperate oneself from the power of the central government. Rebellion and secession are two distinctly different concepts. Seccession has been a legitimate political option throughout history.

The northern kingdom of Israel seceded from Judah. For over 200 years, the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel co-existed. Baodecia attempted leading East Anglia from Roman control. Despite her limited success, she is still venerated as a hero in England, with her statue is prominently displayed in London.

In world history, secession has played a major part in the shaping of nations. In 1776, the American States seceded from England. Vermont maintained a seperate independence in 1777 with its secession. Vermont maintained that status until 1789. In settling the war, England made peace with each of the 13 independent States.Many of the states stipulated they still had the right to leave the new Union. The original Articles of Confederation were deemed perpetual, yet the agreement of the Constitution was not stipulated as perpetual, since it replaced the Articles of Confederation.

After the War of American Secession (aka The American Revolution), the Polish-born American patriot, Thaddeus Kosciusko subsequently left the States to fight for native Poland in its efforts to secede from Russia.

Secession was openly advocated in New England in reasponse to the Lousisiana Purchase in 1804, proposed again in 1808 in reaction to unpopular actions by President Jefferson, and again in 1812 over "Mr. Madison's War", as they called the War of 1812. Secession was a viable political option in dealing with questionable policies enacted by the federal government.

Secession was again threatned by Massachusetts when the question of the annexation of Texas arose. Rather than just discuss the secession option, action took place to make it happen. Although the measure was passed in the State House, action beyond that never occurred. There was no criticism or accusations of treason for Kosciusko, as was heaped on Jefferson Davis.

1810-West Florida secedes from Spain (The United States promptly approved the secession and annexed the nation of West Florida)

1824-Mexico secedes from Spain

1830-Belgium secedes from the Netherlands

1836-Texas secedes from Mexico (The United States recognized the secession of Texas and later annexed the Republic through questionable extra-Constitutional measures)

1861-Southern States secede from the Union of States

1901-Norway secedes from Sweden

1918-Czecheslovakia secedes from Hungary

1967-Anguila secedes from St. Kitts/Nevis (The United States recognized the seceded nations). Biafra attempts secession from Nigeria.

1971-Bangladesh secedes from Pakistan

1989-Eastern European nations secede from communist control (Romania, East Germany, Poland, Czechslovakia, Hungary) (The United States once again recognized the legitimacy of the seceded nations)

1991-Secession from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Ukraine, etc.)(The United States recognized the legimacy of the seceded nations).

1993-Slovak republic secedes from Czecheslovakia

When the Southern States seceded in 1861, each did so individually. After they seceded and reasserted sovereignty, they joined together to form the Confederate States of America. The United States refused to recognize their independence, and labored in international relations to prevent other nations from recognizing the legitimacy of the Confederate States by such nations as Britain and France. During this time, the State of West Virginia was formed out of a portion of land originally part of the State of Virgina.

After the War between the States ended, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of secession in the court case of Texas v. White. In its ruling, written by Salmon Chase, which many legal scholars cite as authoratative on the issue, secession was ruled as legal. The ruling was not unanimous, nor was the case without controversy. The US Supreme Court only considered selective portions of the evidence in the matter. The opinion written by Justice Chase also contained a patchwork of supportive evidence taken out of context from the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Chase took the perpetual aspects from the Articles and patched it into an interpretation of the Constitution. The catch was that the court inserted many stimpulations that must be approved for that to occur, such as the approval of all the States in the Union for the action to occur. The ruling legitmized the reconstruction program then underway in the Southern States. Although cited as the case that settled the secession issue, neither President Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee were tried for treason. Although the case was considered, legal scholars informed the US courts that they did not have a case to prove that secession was treasonous in any manner.

Is Secession Treason?

One misconception concerning seceesion is the association of this political act with treason. Treason is when a group seeks the destruction of the government. Secession as a politcal act seeks to sever one group from the larger nation. Secession does not seek the destruction of the central government. Many times highly centralized governments view secession as a threat due to the demand they place on the people for absolute loyalty.In modern nations, the central government often attempts to enforce universal loyalty.

ther secession movements in modern history include Bangladesh from Pakistan. When the Soviet Union broke up, many republics asserted their sovereignty. Nations such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Georgia and Ukraine took their place at the table of nations after seceding from the Soviet Union.

Within the United States, even today secession groups express their desire to exercise the secession option. In places like Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Texas, California, Lakota Souix and the South groups work toward secession.

Around the world, groups in Scotland, South Ossetia, Tyrol, Flanders, Tibet, Cornwall, Wales, Northern Italy, the Basque region of Spain, Alsace-Lorraine, Quebec, Nevis, Tobago, Inner Mongolia, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka and Indonesia are also seeking secession from their associated nations. In each of these movements, people living in those lands are asserting thier soverignty and seeking independence.

Despite disapproving of secession at home, the United States is actively involved in the secession movements in Palestine and Kosovo.

In India, the government has taken strong steps to prohibit declarations of independence and suppressed separatist movements. Despite these efforts some separatist sentiment continues in Kashmir.

China has also passed anti-secession laws to prevent Tiawan from further exercising its soverignty.

In order for secession to be successful, the secession movement requires the support of the people. For this reason, a body of elected representatives is essential. This elected body will need to consider the laws they are currently under and address the secession question. Some of the issues are what about the debt, courts, public safety and other concerns. In some cases, the nations or regions seeking secession have repudiated previous legal agreements. After repudiating the previous legal agreements (e.g. Constitutions, Confederations, etc.) a public statement is made proclaiming the act of secession.

Whether or not a government allows secession often depends on who is doing it. When the socialists and communists across Europe rose up in defiance in 1848, Congressman Abraham Lincoln spoke in support of self-government.

"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, January 12, 1848 speech in Congress. That same Lincoln changed his views when the Southern States sought to withdraw from the Union and threatned to reduce his tax revenues.Since he was the head of the government being shaken off, he was loosing his power. At that time his attitude was opposed to people shaking off the existing government.

"No state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union. Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy."

In the case of Texas seceding from the Union, the elected representatives from each county repudiated the act of a previous Congress and then issued a formal declaration. Along with this repudiation was the proclamation of failed promises the United States made to Texas. The representatives identified the numerous times that the United States failed to fulfill its promises of protecting the borders and insuring public safety. The declaration was then put to the people to vote on. Other nations have just proclaimed their independence without putting the vote to the people. Having the people vote on the matter adds legitimacy to the act of secession. When the people are not behind the secession, the movement is seen as a revolt or revolution.

When Texas seceded from Mexico, the elected representatives from each county made a public declaration of the wrongs perpetrated by the Mexican government, citing references to the Constitution of 1824. Since the Mexican government and Santa Anna had not abided by the Constitution, the State of Texas sought legal remedy through secession.

When the American States seceded from England, each State declared its individual sovereignty and then seceded separately. Since each State represented individual legal agreements with the crown, it was necessary for each to act within their legal authority on an individual basis. Even in the Declaration of Independence, the States seceded separately. The States later joined together after the War of Secession and formed the Union of States known as the United States of America.

In the case of Anguila, the local authorities took over the police station and other government buildings and proclaimed the indipendence of the nation. Siezure of government buidlings often brings with it the risk of violence and armed reprisals. When Mexico seceded from Spain, the Spainish sent armed forces to repress the actions taken to take over the government. Since in the Mexican secession and Anguila secession, the government buildings were taken over prior to the people voting for and supporting the act of secession, the question of legitimacy is a concern for such movements.

In the case of the American colonies, the War for Southern Independence, and the War for Texas Independence, although the proper legal actions were taken and the movement had the support of the people, the nations from which secession was made, saw to it that military action was taken to stop the movement, despite its legitimacy.

The secession movement in Quebec and in Nevis have had public votes on the matter. Such votes have added legitimacy to the movements without the use of violence. This is a stark contrast to when Biafra attempted seceding from Nigeria where violence was widespread in the attempted secession.