JS – Articles on Secession

To Secede or not to secede, that is the question

The following introductory paragraphs contain links to six legal and biblical research articles
addressing the subject of state secession, starting with an original article by Edwin Vieira,
followed by an opposing opinion by Timothy Baldwin, a response by Edwin Vieira, an
opposing legal opinion by Timothy Baldwin, a biblical argument by Pastor Chuck Baldwin,
and a response to Timothy Baldwin by Edwin Vieira.

The six articles discuss in some detail, historical, biblical, and legal arguments supporting and
critiquing the subject of state secession. All documents are an integrated version of the
separate articles, and all are downloadable from Scribd.com. For continuity sake, it is
probably sensible to read the articles in the sequence provided below.

I. A DISSENTING OPINION ON “SECESSION”

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
February 1, 2010

The Internet is awash with articles in the patriotic ether that promote “secession” of one or
more States from the United States as advisable, practical, and even necessary. Typically, the
authors of these proposals define “secession” (at least implicitly) as the purported legal,
political, and moral right of a State to leave the Union, unilaterally and at her own discretion,
without the approval of or even any participation in the process by any other State or the
General Government in Washington, D.C. Some of these authors contend that the
Constitution itself allows for such “secession”. Others argue that, whatever the Constitution
does or does not countenance in that regard, “secession” is now permissible, and even
imperative, under the principles of the Declaration of Independence, because the General
Government has, as a “Form of Government”, “become[ ] destructive of the[ ] ends” for which
it was first instituted.

And more…

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26398443/Edwin-Vieira-A-Dissenting-Opinion-on-Secession

II. A CONCURRING OPINION FOR SECESSION

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.

February 4, 2010 – February 24, 2010

One of my most highly esteemed colleagues, Edwin Vieira, wrote a recent article entitled,
“A Dissenting Opinion On ‘Secession’,” to which I feel compelled to respond, for a
couple of reasons: (1) many people (including me) highly respect Vieira’s opinion and
analysis, as he has proven himself to be an extremely intelligent person and favorable to the
cause of freedom; and (2) the matter of freedom is too crucial not to be publically debated.
Truth being the ultimate objective, I claim the same liberty as Emer De Vattel in his renowned
exposition, The Law of Nations: “My pen lies under no restraint, and I am incapable of
prostituting it to flattery. I was born in a country of which liberty is the soul, the treasure, and

Page 1 of 4
JS – Articles on Secession

the fundamental law.” Emer De Vattel, The Law of Nations, (Indianapolis, IN, Liberty
Fund, 2008), 20.

And more…

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26576127/Timothy-Baldwin-A-Concurring-Opinion-for-
Secession

III. THOUGHTS ON “A CONCURRING OPINION”

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
March 3, 2010 through April 8, 2010

I welcome the opportunity to have an ethereal discussion with Timothy Baldwin—it will not
be a “debate”, as we agree on too much—concerning “secession,” not only because of the
intrinsic value of the subject, but also because of Mr. Baldwin’s erudition and gentlemanly
manner. No one in this discussion will, to use his words, “try to paint advocates for states’
rights as loony, nutty, irrational, or otherwise enemies to the union”—because we all know
that “some of the most well-recognized[,] intelligent and articulate statesmen and patriots
throughout America’s history have advocated the right of States to secede from the Union,
both under the Articles of Confederation and United States Constitution”. And we also know
that many eminent statesmen and patriots have taken the opposite position. Interestingly,
too, both Mr. Baldwin and I “advocate[ ] the right of States to secede”, albeit in some
particulars under different circumstances and procedures. Which points up a problem in
this discussion: namely, that “the right of a State to secede” means different things to
different people—not all of whom are careful to define their terms—which no doubt is why
there has been so much (probably unnecessary) dissension on this subject over the years.

And more…

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27801278/Edwin-Vieira-Thoughts-on-a-Concurring-Opinion

IV. SECESSION OR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.

April 15, 2010

We must recognize today: the most foundational principles of self-government, the consent of
the governed and the existence of a Higher Law founded in God confirm that separation is not
only a right, but also a duty and obligation of a body-politic, when it becomes clear to that
body that separation is necessary, all of the constitutional arguments and posturing in the
world notwithstanding.

Dr. Edwin Vieira has released his (presumably) final responses (“Thoughts On ‘A Concurring
Opinion’”) to my responding articles (“A Concurring Opinion For Secession”) to his original
articles (“A Dissenting Opinion On Secession”). While I was hesitant to respond at all to
Vieira’s articles, and as I shall forego directly responding to what I believe are incorrect
insinuations, commentaries and conclusions, I must observe and highlight a very important
matter relative to a state’s right and duty to free itself from tyranny. For in truth, Vieira

Page 2 of 4
JS – Articles on Secession

admits to the precise conclusion that a State does have a natural right to separate itself from a
political tie.

Specifically put, the Declaration of Independence appeals not to a constitution for a basis, or a
justification, of secession–even though a constitution existed at that time–but to the Supreme
Judge of the world and to the natural laws God created. Given the supreme nature of this
right of secession, a different body-politic at a different time in human affairs has the same
inherent right as did the colonies in 1776.

And more…

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29964863/Timothy-Baldwin-Secession-or-Declaration-of-
Independence

V. A CONCURRING (BIBLICAL) OPINION FOR SECESSION

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

April 23, 2010

My son, Tim Baldwin, who is a constitutional attorney, recently engaged my friend, attorney
Ed Vieira, Jr., in a spirited and intellectual written debate on the rightness or wrongness of
State secession. Vieira took the unionist position that states do not have the constitutional
right to secede. Tim took the freedomist position that states have both a constitutional and
Natural Law right to secede (a position with which I firmly agree, as most readers know).

One element that neither writer covered (understandably so, given the legal nature of the
debate) was the BIBLICAL right of secession. Christians rightly square everything with the
principles and precepts of the Holy Scriptures. So, is there Biblical approbation and authority
for State secession?

And more…

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30402204/Chuck-Baldwin-A-Concurring-Biblical-Opinion-for-
Secession

VI. GOSSAMER WINGS

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

May 12, 2010

In his latest series on “Secession or Declaration of Independence”, particularly Parts 4

and 5, Mr. Timothy Baldwin raises some interesting points. (see:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29964863/Timothy-Baldwin-Secession-or-Declaration-of-
Independence)

Unfortunately, he misconstrues my meaning when he attributes to me the notion that (in his
words) “as long as the [General G]overnment is executing laws, regulations, restriction,
mandates, etc., ‘in the name of doing good’, then such a regime and such acts are not

Page 3 of 4
JS – Articles on Secession

tyrannous regardless of effect”. I thought I had made it clear enough in my commentaries on

this subject that, if public officials were actually trying to obey the Constitution (not just
going through the motions “in the name of doing good”), their actions would not constitute
“tyranny” even if the effects thereof inadvertently might not satisfy with mathematical
precision some hyper-technical definition of “the common defence” and “the general
Welfare”. This is because there must always be some “play in the gears” for any government
to function. Mr. Baldwin, however, seems to contend that any such “play” amounts, at least
presumptively, to “tyranny”.

And more…

http://www.scribd.com/Edwin-Vieira-Gossamer-Wings/d/31250107

###

Page 4 of 4