Ever since I read Grant's memoirs his short two paragraph argument about secession has stayed with me and often come up in my mind every time I hear someone mention the Civil War (or more recently about Scotland's vote). This is the argument:
"Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution.
Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship--on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror--must be the result."
Though Grant was hardly a lawyer or constitutional scholar, this has stuck me as being a very practical and clear explanation against the right of the South to secede. Is it missing anything? Is he wrong? In everything I've read about the Civil War, I've never seen anyone else say anything similar. Is that in fact the case? If so, why do you think it is mostly forgotten or obscure?
Thank you!
Grant's views seem pretty consistent with the language used by several of the Constitutions drafters and other Founding Fathers, particularly Madison and arguably Jefferson, who did maintain the right to revolution as a natural right while being less clear about the right to secession. Madison wrote a letter to Hamilton during the New York ratification convention expressing that the right of any state to withdraw from the Union was incompatible with the principles of the Constitution. He also wrote a letter praising Daniel Webster for his take on the nature of the union and his opposition to Compact Theory in Webster's second reply to Hayne, again affirming that he was opposed to secession as a constitutional remedy. Madison did uphold his belief in the right to revolution in many of his writings, including the more radical Virginia Resolution. With Jefferson it's less clear, as it's arguable that Jefferson did support nullification in theory, though Madison said of Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution in 1833 that nullification in South Carolina's example was at odds with the intent of those documents, though I'm not certain to what extent this might be Madison refusing to support a more radical position he or Jefferson might have held at a younger age in the context of a clearly repressive law (Alien and Sedition Acts).
William Freehling's view is not the definitive one, but said this of the issue in Prelude to the Civil War:
Madison and Jefferson feared that the Alien and Sedition acts would end the free discussions and open debates which must precede a truly democratic election. Unless minorities had power to take their case to the people, they believed, majorities would have no right to rule the Republic. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were at least intended to preserve the sanctity of majority rule by protecting the electoral process which made it legitimate. In this sense, when South Carolinians claimed that a minority could negate economic legislation passed by a fairly elected majority, they repudiated a critical aspect of the resolutions.
Of course, none of this gives a definitive answer over whether the right to secession as a constitutional remedy for a set of grievances actually exists, as law ≠ what certain Founding Dads thought. There's a lot more to the matter, and /u/borimi has an excellent response here that saves me a lot of typing.
I read his argument and think that King George could have made a similar argument regarding British resources, technology and culture being the English blood and treasure being split for the birth of the colonies.
In any case, this was absolutely a fascinating thing to read, thank you for posting it.
Grant's views were far isolated. Here's a quote by Abraham Lincoln, of all people, concerning the rights of peoples to withdraw from a tyrannical 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.
Grant's and Lincoln's views are whitewashed because historians are so quick to condemn the Confederacy, that they don't like to confront anything that shows that maybe they did have the right to secede. Obviously, Lincoln changed his tune by the time he was a presidential candidate, but the question still existed, and only after the war was the question thrown under the rug.