Thanks Davo and Jack for your responses to the question. PeacefulAssembly.org is a rather new site and has not yet found its way to the search engines. As soon as it does, however, it is my hope that we will receive much more traffic on both the forum and the article interfaces.

Now, on to my responses to my own question: According to the Living Constitution of these United States, secession is "legal". According to Lincoln and the aftermath of his Unconstitutional War Against His Constitution, secession is "illegal". Thus secession is "illegally Constitutional". Now, a new question that I would pose: "Which do we pay attention to: the Constitution or the result of Lincoln's War?"

It would appear to me personally that the Lincoln-instituted Republican Party would have noticed that there was a dispute with the concept of the Constitutionality of the idea of Secession...after all, that was the root cause of the War--the South believed they could secede, while Lincoln believed they couldn't, and maneuvered the citizenry of the North (who didn't really agree with him) to think that it did.

After that War was over, and Lincoln had supposedly "proved his point" (the fact that that point was proven both tyrannically and at gunpoint notwithstanding) would not it seem that his Party would see to it that the Constitution was amended to insure that the dispute would not arise again? But they did not. Why?

I believe that there could have been a couple of reasons prompting their avoidance of this important modification:

1. The seceded States and their Citizenry would probably sooner have been annihilated rather than deny their right of secession. It is interesting, but not at all surprising that this right was confirmed originally in the Declaration of Independence: "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive ... it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government." So, if it were not for the fundamental right of secession, this nation, under God, would not even have been there (and still be here) to give rise to the dispute at hand!
   
   Robert E. Lee was very disturbed at the direction the Republicans took during the years following the Second War of Independence. He is recorded as saying to Texas Governor Fletcher Stockdale: "Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no, sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand." Rest assured that where Marse Robert led, his loyal soldiers followed. I believe that if the Republicans had taken the action of forced ratification, and Lee had spoken against it, another massacre would have shortly followed. That massacre would have certainly been hopeless for the Patriots, but the Tyrants would have had to live with their actions in the end.
   
   
2. Another possibility seems very unlikely to me--that the Republican Tyrants realized that they had been in the wrong. Some encouraging evidence to this point however, is their refusal to grant trial to Jefferson Davis, which was his only request.

In The Real Lincoln, page 206, PeacefulAssembly.org Contributor Thomas J. DiLorezno wrote:
Jefferson Davis, who...was in a military prison, never had a trial and so never was able to make the case for secession: Republican Party political operatives simply declared the right of secession to be illegitimate.

Having just waged a four-year war to destroy the right of secession, the Republican Party was not about to allow the possibility that the concept could be revived by a ruling in Jefferson Davis's favor in a court of law. Author Charles Adams has persuasively argued, in fact, that Jefferson Davis would have had a very good chance of winning such a trial: One of the most famous trial lawyers of the era, Charles O'Conor of New York, had volunteered to defend Davis; the trial would have taken place in Virginia; and criminal intent on Davis's part would have had to be proven--a virtual impossibility in light of the long history of the right of secession in America.

Although the Feds never forced the ratification of a Federal Amendment (Maybe also because the victorious northern States would also have refused to ratify.  After all, the army from those States was the only force the Federal Government had to shove anything down the throats of the secessionists. It's not as if the right of secession had not been taught for decades previous at such prestigious universities as West Point.), they did force the seceded States to draft new Constitutions denouncing the right of secession (the reader will note that Vermont, the State in direct discussion, was not a seceded State, and therefore they were not forced to deny the legality of their right of secession). Another interesting tidbit here is that if Lincoln and his Party really believed that there never was a right of secession, why would they force such actions on those several formerly seceded States?

Lincoln never admitted that those States had seceded, which would be similar to the outrageous thought that the States that seceded in the 1860's could claim that, since their "restoration" was "illegal", that they are still seceded, and that there is, still, a Confederate States of America.

What is also interesting regarding the fact that secession is "illegally Constitutional", is the following thought chain. Please bear with me:

If secession is fundamentally "illegal" (and ol' Thomas Jefferson and the entire Continental Congress was wrong), but yet it is "legal" in the Constitution (Amendment X), then is not the Constitution "illegal"? The Constitution is the "license" for the Federal Government to govern over a ratifying area, right? If so, and the Constitution is "illegal", then doesn't that also mean that the Federal Government is "illegal"?

Additionally interesting is the idea that if the Constitution is "illegal", then this very website is "illegal", because it was founded based on the guarantee of the freedom to peacefully assemble. In essence, there would be nothing to prevent this country's being considered an empire! Scary, huh?

These questions that have occurred to me are very intriguing...what do you think?

J. Adam Craig
Site Administrator

The issue of secession being legal or not is a very delicate and complicated issue. I am not a lawyer but from my limited knowledge of the U.S. Constitution I believe that it should have been legal but there has been a considerable challenge to that issue in the mid nineteenth century which has set a more than considerable precedent. When the South Carolina Legislature voted for secession on December 20, 1860, the issue was first directly challenged. The issue had been threatened many times prior to that date but secession had never been pursued to the extent of separation. Enough history, the question is, "is it legal" and not "was it legal". I believe that it is no longer legal due to the precedent set in the 1860's. Even if secession were legal, it would surely not be expedient and the divestiture would certainly weaken the national security which would be contrary to the wishes of current public opinion. I am not sure that there is enough public desire, resolve and/or understanding for the public to seek or permit a remedy as drastic and disruptive as secession.

The Christianity theme being related to this issue by the distinguished author prior to my post is quite profound. I do concur that the issue of liberty has deep Christian roots but I will argue that the liberty which The New Testament affirms has no room for institutions: federal, state, or county. It has no requirement for corporate or political alignment. I believe that the Christian promise of liberty pertains only to individual atonement with God and His issues of liberty which are so pure, simple and concise that they need not be explained (i.e. self evident) and may not be denied due to their inalienable status. I am very thankful for this liberty and I cherish it daily. Remember, Paul was never more liberated than when he was bound in chains for Christ.

I think that we must separate the secular privilege of self government among humankind from liberty which has been endowed to us by our Creator in order to find the most reasonable answer to the secular issue of political sovereignty.

Great question Adam, I really enjoy the challenge of civil public debate.

Vermont must have a lot of descendants from Irish rebels.

There is no question that the "several States" can secede at will. Lincoln forcibly inducted tens of thousands of poor New York immigrants to kill all southerners who tried to throw federal agents and installations out of the South. But this time, few Americans will allow themselves to be forced to shoot Vermont citizens because they have the courage to stand up and "Just say NO!!"

We can expect to see federal force used once again against the States in Vermont. Thus Vermont will become the Martyr State that will rally more and more States to the cause of secession or RADICAL removal of all the bureaucrats in D.C., most especially removing or castrating the U.S. Supreme Court, who sealed their own fate with their pathological Eminent-Domain-For-Profit in Kelo v City of New London, CT. That was 'The Last Straw For All.'

The Fed has absolutely NO IDEA how angry and disgusted the average American is with their increasing tyranny. Graduates of publik skools, kept intentionally ignorant by government design, are now waking up and growling ominously.

The United States of America under God was once the mightiest nation of earth. However, after government kicking God out of publik skools and institutions and making itself god, it has degraded to the 'United Snakes of Amerikkka," and the people will indeed rise up to force strict compliance to the U.S. Constitution, allowing 'Zero Tolerance' for interpretation of it by judicial activists.

There is a movement growing to cancel out the mother snake: judicial activism. Go to the Judicial Accountability In Legislation (J.A.I.L. For Judges) website and see what pro-constitutional Americans are doing. http://www.jail4judges.org/

The New Minutemen won't need muskets in this struggle. Instead, their new weapons will be information, alerting more and more citizens to support the J.A.I.L. amendment and kick the federal courts, federal judges, federal agents, and federal installations not directly related to the common defense the hell OUT of each State, telling them to "Get you're filthy hands OFF of our guns, homes and money, you filthy APES!!"

Ignorance of our rights is NO EXCUSE.