Secession: Is It Constitutional?

Is it constitutional for states to secede from the United States? Many have argued for and against it, but no real clear answer has appeared. To explore this topic, we must first define secession. In the political science section of the Colombia Encyclopedia, it defines secession as: “formal withdrawal from an association by a group discontented with the actions or decisions of that association.” 

We have to realize that there is a difference between revolution and secession. Secession is defined as peaceful or formal withdrawal, whereas revolution is when you have to fight to be independent. Revolution is what happened to America when they broke away from Britain, and revolution is what happened during the Civil War after the Confederacy tried to secede. The circumstance of secession is different from the circumstances during colonial times. Before America broke off from Great Britain, they tried to change the corrupt government, but were not given representation to do so. That is why it was necessary for them to break from Britain. America didn’t secede from Great Britain, because their break off wasn’t peaceful. It was revolution. The same thing happened during the Civil War. We have to realize that just because mankind has a certain right doesn’t mean that right will be protected. It doesn’t really matter if secession is a God-given right to states, because if a nation is so corrupt that a state wants to secede, then that nation will not let that state secede, and revolution will happen. It is the job of governments to keep their people happy. 

Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution states: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” It goes on to state many more powers that are not granted to the states, but to the Federal Government alone. All are powers regulated by a federal government. Some have argued that if it was constitutional for states to secede, the Constitution wouldn’t be so bold on what states couldn’t do. Anti-secessionists argue that by mentioning these powers, the Founders were trying to say that it was illegal for states to secede. The argument has come up that the Constitution doesn’t specifically mention secession, and because of this, there is no reason to assume that it is constitutional for states to secede; that the Constitution simply doesn’t give them that power. 

Another argument that anti-secessionists have brought up comes from Article 7 of the Constitution. It states, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.” Before colonies became states and joined the United States, they had to enter into an agreement to become a part of the union by ratifying the Constitution. The people of the United States can leave whenever they want and move to Canada or Mexico or whatever other country or place they desire to reside in. However, many have argued that the states are bound to stay a part of the Union because they ratified the Constitution. 

With this argument comes a quote by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase (it’s long, but it’s all very significant to the point he’s trying to make): “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? ... 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.” 

What is the truth? It’s hard to say, but I’m not sure if these arguments are completely valid. Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution mentions powers not given to states, but these are all powers that are meant to be given to a federal government. The argument doesn’t make sense because if a state seceded, it would become a federal government in and of itself, and therefore it would have rights to exercise powers that are meant for a federal government. It is very difficult to know whether or not secession is constitutional because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so that is a bit of a mystery. It’s also very hard to decipher unalienable rights of states, because the circumstance of state rights is different from that of human rights. 

The Declaration of Independence states: “…that when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government…it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” 

Is secession constitutional? That is a question that I do not have the answer to. However, the question “can states secede?” isn’t as important as the question “should states secede?” I strongly believe that this nation was meant to stay together. In the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution, the Founders were trying to make it clear that they wanted to create a nation that fixed itself, not a nation that broke itself into pieces. Secessionists have argued that the Founders believed in the right to secession because they made the states sovereign. On the other hand, I think the reason why the Founders invested so much power in the states and the people was so that when the government became corrupt, the people could fix it. Because the people and the states in the United States are sovereign, the Founders didn’t want them to be able to break off from America—rather, to fix America when it became corrupt. These are the principles that our nation was founded on. 

Fifty-five men came together at Independence Hall in the summer of 1787 to create something that had never before been created—a nation that lasted. They came to create a nation that would stand the test of time; a nation with a government that was not corrupt and not oppressive that would allow for it to last for hundreds of years. That is exactly what they accomplished: they created a chosen nation that has remained intact up until even today. During Civil War times, Lincoln was trying to keep together a nation that was being broken apart. He said a lot about secession, and I don’t know what he believed as far as that goes, but I do know that it was his mission to keep this nation together, and that’s what he did. 

As we see America crumbling and the Constitution being stepped on, there’s one thing we have to remember: united we will stand, and divided we will fall. This is God’s chosen nation. This land is a free land. We can’t just escape America’s problems. We are here to fix them.

The Theory of Thymos: Plato’s Prediction

People are strange. Throughout all the ages of man, armies have wasted their lives going to war over things as frivolous as an apple as well as many who kill themselves and others in the name of a divine being that they have never even seen. At the same time, many heroes have given their lives in protecting liberty and standing up for justice and freedom. What could cause people to make decisions such as these? The ancient Greeks believed that there was a part within each of us that caused us to make irrational decisions like these. This was called Thymos. Plato wrote extensively on the topic. He said that all forms of society are born from this philosophy of Thymos, and I agree. Upon examination we can find that political initiative, the life blood of a free society, flows from the attributes of Thymos. Likewise, if we do not control this place within, we will develop a weaker more tyrannical society.

The Thymos that dwells within each of us is the seat of our passions. It has been defined as that area of the soul where feelings of pride, indignation, greed, and shame as well as those of kindness, charity, empathy, courage, and nobility are located and ruled. The Thymos is a force of progression. It is not content with where it is now. It wants to grow, to become greater. If left unchecked, it will even push a person to dominate or enslave another. It also drives many people, especially men, to seek glory in what they do and a legacy for others to remember them by. This is an essential part of a human being.

Plato compared the human soul to a chariot with the charioteer and two horses. The first horse is called Eros. This horse was not well bred, hard to control, and is represented as a black horse. The second is Thymos, of royal breed, but rather prideful and difficult. He is a white horse. The charioteer’s name is Logos. He is the master of these horses and has the potential to control them, or to destroy the whole chariot by his lack of control. The meaning of these three Greek words are Appetite (Eros), Passion (Thymos), and Logic or Reason (Logos). Combined, these three function to make us each who we are. To find the key to understanding Plato’s idea of the soul (and how Thymos works into it), we must look at the other two parts of the chariot.

Plato's Analogy of the Soul

Thymos is the part of our soul which allows us growth. However, depending on which of the other two agents it listens to will determine whether it grows to a healthy and strong Thymos or becomes a deformed and weak force for evil. When Thymos begins to act like Eros (or we allow our passions to become dependent on our carnal appetites), it will grow weak and unhealthy. In contrast, the Godly capacity each of us has to reason and think for ourselves allows us to subjugate both our passions and our appetites to work as a team. When we master all three of these fundamentals of the soul, we exhibit pure greatness. Men in this station will often demand respect, and are they very dignified. When this state of being is achieved, we receive a greater sense of what we feel is right and wrong, our understanding of justness (the primitive form of justice) quickens, and we begin to get a sense of what we want the world around us to become.

This sense of justness brings with it a need for action. When people with strong Thymos see unjustness being exhibited towards themselves and to those with whom they are associated, they cannot help but stand up for that. When there are enough people who rise to fight this unjustness, no matter what the price, there will be a change in the society to match the new active majority’s view of justness. This massive-scale change is exactly what took place in America with the Civil Rights movement. This now becomes the new law of justice, and it will remain so until a new active majority overrules that in the name of their perception of “justness,” ad infinitum. This is the key to political action. A persons natural sense of what is “just” and what is not. But this is not always a positive, improving concept. When the active majority decides that what is “just” is not in fact true or eternal “justice,” then the society is headed for a dark period.

The first way that a Thymos can become twisted is if it is allowed to fall into step with Eros; our appetites were not meant to control our passions. This occurs when reason steps aside and is not firm in its control of Thymos. Thymos then begins to see the “freedom” of following ones basest instincts. When one totally logical person loses his or her passions to things like eating, sleeping, and amusement, they become totally immoral and selfish. This is just the opposite of what is necessary for a freedom reform. The sense of “justness” caused in this type of person will change as fast as their animal instincts will. If the active majority consists of these people, they will have an extremely unstable foundation.

Another way a Thymos can become socially destructive is when you feed it but don’t control it. By hooking that beast to your chariot unbridled, you are asking for destruction. This type of Thymos is like a unkept fire. It will only grow and consume everything around it. When this type of Thymos develops inside of someone, they lose all the positive attributes that used to be a part of it. All that is left is pride, indignation, and greed. This person, when insulted or not recognized as much as they would like, will lash out in indignation because of their pride, or the shame they feel because of the truth shown them. They won’t only fight back, they will begin to rally others around them, lighting others on fire as well. As this begins to happen, greed sets in and those people begin to seek for power. This is much like what happened in the French Revolution. People with this mindset will have a very oppressive idea of “justness” and they will normally use force to instagate their idea of justice.

The last dangerous type of Thymos is actually not dangerous in and of itself. Its presence makes it so that the other two types can function, making this, in my opinion, the most lethal of the three. This is a domesticated Thymos. Thymotic behavior is essential for liberty and freedom because it invites all to stand up for what they believe. It is this same behavior that caused early Americans to fight for liberty. When that behavior is removed, you have complacency and apathy. This is why the “active” part of any majority is the part that has the power. A person who doesn’t stand for anything will fall for everything. These people might not agree with their immoral leaders, but they won’t do anything about it. When one of those flaming groups of powerseekers begins their quest, these people won’t care what’s happening (as it won’t hurt them). They will be caught in the fire and throw their lives away for a selfish tyrant and a cause to which they don’t even understand or really care about. This is the kind of Thymos that is destroying America as we speak.

Thymos was something greatly understood by ancient peoples throughout the world. It was the source of many great political changes like the Magna Charta, Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. But when not harnessed appropriately it has also led to some of the worst moments of history, times like the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Communist movement. We can see the need to awaken those who don’t have any passion, and to stand up for the true sense of eternal justice. Some have been pushing their personal idea of “justness” upon what we thought was true “justice.” In truth, this process has been in motion for years. We are at a crossroads of freedom and bondage predicted by Plato. I swear that I will take up the reigns of my chariot and guide my passions and appetites down a road towards freedom. I can only hope that you will join with me in this Race for Liberty.

See Plato’s Phaedrus and The Republic for details and sources.