Rawles on Secession.

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Rawles writings on the Constitution can be found at the following site:  http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle-00.htm 

I'll post about Rawles at West Point in another post. 

Let's see what Rawles said about secession.  http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_32.htm
CHAPTER XXXII.

OF THE PERMANENCE OF THE UNION.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government, shall protect each of them against invasion, and on application of the legislature, or of the executive when the legislature cannot be convened, against domestic violence.

he Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one.

But the mere compact, without the power to enforce it, would be of little value. Now this power can be no where so properly lodged, as in the Union itself. Hence, the term guarantee, indicates that the United States are authorized to oppose, and if possible, prevent every state in the Union from relinquishing the republican form of government, and as auxiliary means, they are expressly authorized and required to employ their force on the application of the constituted authorities of each state, "to repress domestic violence." If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the, express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.​
If a faction of the entire citizens seeks to subvert the government of a State to destroy its relationship to the Union, then the Union can respond to suppress it.  This is where the devil in the details come in, how many citizens are needed before subversion becomes mainstream--the will of the majority.  One way out is for the people of a State to change its constitution so that it is not a republic.  

The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." 1 It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.
In what manner this guaranty shall be effectuated is not explained, and it presents a question of considerable nicety and importance.

Not a word in the Constitution is intended to be inoperative, and one so significant as the present was not lightly inserted. The United States are therefore bound to carry it into effect whenever the occasion arises, and finding as we do, in the same clause, the engagement to protect each state against domestic violence, which can only be by the arms of the Union, we are assisted in a due construction of the means of enforcing the guaranty. If the majority of the people of a state deliberately and peaceably resolve to relinquish the republican form of government, they cease to be members of the Union. If a faction, an inferior number, make such an effort, and endeavour to enforce it by violence, the case provided for will have arisen, and the Union is bound to employ its power to prevent it.
Again we run into the who decides question.  


The power and duty of the United States to interfere with the particular concerns of a state are not, however, limited to the violent efforts of a party to alter its constitution. If from any other motives, or under any other pretexts, the internal peace and order of the state are disturbed, and its own powers are insufficient to suppress the commotion, it becomes the duty of its proper government to apply to the Union for protection. This is founded on the sound principle that those in whom the force of the Union is vested, in diminution of the power formerly possessed by the state, are bound to exercise it for the good of the whole, and upon the obvious and direct interest that the whole possesses in the peace and tranquillity of every part. At the same time it is properly provided, in order that such interference may not wantonly or arbitrarily take place; that it shall only be, on the request of the state authorities: otherwise the self-government of the state might be encroached upon at the pleasure of the Union, and a small state might fear or feel the effects of a combination of larger states against it under colour of constitutional authority; but it is manifest, that in every part of this excellent system, there has been the utmost care to avoid encroachments on the internal powers of the different states, whenever the general good did not imperiously require it.
Nice theory, but how is it to be implemented.  What if there is an effort to secede when 2 groups claim to be the government of a State.  The Central government could simply pick and chose which to support.  There is no Constitutional plan for secession and without it, there can be no secession because there are 2 many issues to resolve.


The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, bold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express pro- vision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents.
As of this writing 1829, there are no secession provisions in any State Consitution.  At this point, the people of a State have to call a constitutional convention to change their constitution to get out of the Union.  Again, who decides if this procedure is followed is significant and Rawles does not give us a hint. 

But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. The perspicuity and solemnity of the original obligation require correspondent qualities in its dissolution. The powers of the general government cannot be defeated or impaired by an ambiguous or implied secession on the part of the state, although a secession may perhaps be conditional. The people of the state may have some reasons to complain in respect to acts of the general government, they may in such cases invest some of their own officers with the power of negotiation, and may declare an absolute secession in case of their failure. Still, however, the secession must in such case be distinctly and peremptorily declared to take place on that event, and in such case — as in the case of an unconditional secession, — the previous ligament with the Union, would be legitimately and fairly destroyed. But in either case the people is the only moving power.
Once more Rawles speculates without details.  

The bottom line is Rawles speculates about secession but is unable to flesh out the procedure.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
One very important fact to keep in mind is that in the Secession of 1860-61, not a single State that seceded followed Rawles' procedures.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
IMHO another thing to keep in mind is that Rawles is writing into a vacuum.  Nationalism had not prevailed and will not until 1865.  There is speculation on the nature of the Union. 

What happens if a State had followed Rawles suggestion in 1830.  It will depend on if other States are willing to provide blood and treasure to suppress an entire population.  

In the secession of 1860-61 suppression of secession did not happen, but instead suppression of a rebellion. The seceded States attacked the remaining States via the attack on Fort Sumpter and those remaining States chose to repel the secessionists.
 

Andersonh1

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
580
Reaction score
742
I had yet to read any of this. Thanks for sharing.

Rawles is clearly a believer in consent of the governed, and that membership in the Union can be maintained or ended in several ways.


The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.

The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." 1 It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Andersonh1 said:
I had yet to read any of this. Thanks for sharing.

Rawles is clearly a believer in consent of the governed. I need to spend some time thinking about the implications of all this.


The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.

The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." 1 It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.
IMHO it took the Civil War to forge the US into a consolidated nation.  The process started with the Articles of Confederation and as problems arose like the Whisky Rebellion, assorted insurrections, financial panics, and just plain modernisation along with the National movements of the 19th century, States were unable to solve the problems so it fell to the Federal government.  The Constitution, the various Militia&Insurrection acts and finally the 14th amendment were the result.  Ideology aside, nationalism worked.  It was not nice, the Constitution was used to oppress debt holders and small farmers with the resulting Whisky Rebellion and large financial interests have had priority over common folks.  Prosperity vs freedom and security vs freedom has always been a battleground.  

Rawles IMHO proposed a conditional secession, meet the conditions and you are out.  That is not much different from any of the proposals floating around in the Antebellum era even Calhoun's Disquisition on Government.  Theories abound even today about Constitutional Amendments or Constitutional conventions to allow secession AKA conditional secession.  

A thought question, would the secessionists of Alabama allowed the slaves to vote, slaves being governed and if the governed need to give consent?  That is the rub, who decides who can give consent?   VA had one of the freest secession conventions but some folks were not happy with it. 

[img=300x261]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Virginia_secession_vote.jpg/300px-Virginia_secession_vote.jpg[/img]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Virginia_secession_vote.jpg
 

jjunkguy

New Member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
jgoodguy said:
Andersonh1 said:
I had yet to read any of this. Thanks for sharing.

Rawles is clearly a believer in consent of the governed. I need to spend some time thinking about the implications of all this.


The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.

The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." 1 It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable.
IMHO it took the Civil War to forge the US into a consolidated nation.  The process started with the Articles of Confederation and as problems arose like the Whisky Rebellion, assorted insurrections, financial panics, and just plain modernisation along with the National movements of the 19th century, States were unable to solve the problems so it fell to the Federal government.  The Constitution, the various Militia&Insurrection acts and finally the 14th amendment were the result.  Ideology aside, nationalism worked.  It was not nice, the Constitution was used to oppress debt holders and small farmers with the resulting Whisky Rebellion and large financial interests have had priority over common folks.  Prosperity vs freedom and security vs freedom has always been a battleground.  

Rawles IMHO proposed a conditional secession, meet the conditions and you are out.  That is not much different from any of the proposals floating around in the Antebellum era even Calhoun's Disquisition on Government.  Theories abound even today about Constitutional Amendments or Constitutional conventions to allow secession AKA conditional secession.  

A thought question, would the secessionists of Alabama allowed the slaves to vote, slaves being governed and if the governed need to give consent?  That is the rub, who decides who can give consent?   VA had one of the freest secession conventions but some folks were not happy with it. 

[img=300x261]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Virginia_secession_vote.jpg/300px-Virginia_secession_vote.jpg[/img]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Virginia_secession_vote.jpg
 
Top