A Constitutional History of Secession [Hardcover]

John Remington Graham (Author), Donald Livingston (Foreword)

Book Description

Publication Date: October 31, 2002

A timeless reference on the right of secession from Britainís Glorious Revolution to Canada's current situation. Born in Minnesota, John Remington Graham is a constitutional-law attorney who served as an advisor on secession to the amicus curiae for Quebec.

Editorial Reviews

From the Inside Flap

He is also the author of High Finance and the Conquest of the Old South, published by Pelican.

From the Back Cover

He is also the author of High Finance and the Conquest of the Old South, published by Pelican.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 464 pages
• Publisher: Pelican Publishing (October 31, 2002)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1589800664
• ISBN-13: 978-1589800663
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6.1 x 1.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.8 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (16 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #622,969 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

71 of 81 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars "...the truth is great and will prevail...", February 9, 2004

By 

Robert A. Johnson (Pasadena, CA United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: A Constitutional History of Secession (Hardcover)

"..when the work of the lie is done, the lie will rot, the truth is great and will prevail, when none cares whether it prevails or not..." - Coventry Patmor circa 1850's.

I have ordered copies of A Constitutional History of Secession by John Remington Graham, a member of the Minnesota bar, for my sons, some friends, and the library of the high school that my sons attended. This with the hope of overcoming, with at least some, the kernel of what I believe to be Patmor's correct characterization of lie v. truth in regards to too much of our history - in this case truth as set forth in that book.

That any State had a Constitutional right to secede is undeniable, the author makes that case airtight. From the dust cover, where Professor Clyde Wilson, University of South Carolina was quoted, "Had I the power, I would require every professor of history, political science, and law in America to read Graham's work. Nowhere is there a truer and more thorough treatment of the origins and nature of freedom and self-government. This work is essential for those who would like to recover those great blessings."

If you are interested in the statesmanship of Chief Justice Taney after his dreadful opinion in the Dred Scott case; if you are interested in why the author believes Lincoln's predecessor's speech "...should be carved in stone of a conspicuous monument for the guidance of every leader who might in the future guide the destiny of a federal Union..."; if you are interested in the how and why of Stanton's undermining of McClellan "... the image given by the common lot of civil war historians, preposterous in the light of the facts, is that McCellan ..."; if you are interested in why "... the capitalists financed agitation against slavery, - not the rational arguments of Lydia Maria Child, but the vulgar appeals of Harriet Beecher Stowe, "...for they wished ..." ; if you are interested in why the Missouri Compromise was repealed and why the repeal led to war then you may agree with the author that "... Lincoln's objectives were to quiet the agitations in the North against the South, and to remove the cause of the discontent by restoration of the Missouri Compromise, which should never have been repealed at all. ..."

If you are interested in a myriad of "whys and how's", in short, if you are interested in "sovereignty of the people" v. "... States Right is simply code for slavery then or discrimination now", you must give a fair reading to A Constitutional History of Secession.

80 of 94 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Secession in history vs the Lie told in American History, March 19, 2004

By 

David N. Weber - See all my reviews

This review is from: A Constitutional History of Secession (Hardcover)

I found this book by accident. After I started reading I could not put it down! John Graham has written the most comprehensive study on the late War Between the States. He brings to light the causes of war, little know facts about the people who conducted the war to the conduct carried out by Stanton through his insane generals. After reading this book everyone will know that the United States was destroyed by the war and through the illegeal acts of President Abraham Lincoln. History, law, truth and justice were only part of the things lost during the war. The 600,000 men, untold numbers of civilians and the 8 billion dollars spent to destroy the south were a waste that can all be attributed to Lincoln. What a price was paid for the government we have today! A must read for all students of law and history. I would give ten stars if I could!

17 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Oustanding in spite of a few off-point flaws, September 13, 2006

By 

D. Thomas (Colorado USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Constitutional History of Secession (Paperback)

J.R. Graham has written an excellent book giving history and legal perspectives. Other reviews have made excellent observations of the content.

One reviewer erroneously commented that the book was factually flawed in that the Constitution prohibits secession. That is, of course, untrue. The section he refers to has to do with the admission of new states and a new state cannot be formed of other states without the consent of Congress. It doesn't take a book to understand the legitimacy of secession. After all, that's what the Declaration of Independence was about. If one rejects secession, one must also reject the Declaration of Independence.

The most serious flaw in the book regarded race and citizenship - a topic not really the focus of the book anyway. The author cites a judges opinion that non-whites that were free were citizens and the author generalizes this to all states. In fact, only a few states recognized non-whites as citizens. And because all privileges of citizenship had to be recognized throughout the United States, these non-white citizens could not properly be called US citizens until a new class of citizenship was created by the 14th Amendment. The author imagines that citizenship existed without voting rights (after all, white women could not vote either.) However, voting was always something required to indicate membership in the "sovereignty" and it could be established with certain qualifications - age, sex, etc. But could you imagine the possibility of prohibiting all whites from participating in government? It is clear that voting has a great bearing on the concept of citizenship.

It is abundantly clear from most state constitutions, numerous naturalization acts and court rulings that race formed an essential element of who "the people" were that formed the United States. The point is not "racism" but simply what historically a "nation" was thought to be. Even Webster's 1828 dictionary pointed out that "posterity" had to do with a "race" of decendents.

My point here is to just be clear that Dred Scott was not some exceptionally bad ruling but was actually indicitive of the overwhelming majority of thought. That to create a pluralistic, multi-nationalistic, global community of the former United States requires dealing with the past Christian history that considered race important. One way to do that is to sweep it under the rug as this author has done. But I am of the old school of dealing truthfully with the past.

The other flaw was the author's failure to recognize the full scope of the 14th Amendment's harm to America. By creating a new subject-class citizenship called a US citizen which allows even corporations to now be called US citizens, it has forever confused the original nature of state citizenship. This is well documented in court cases and even declared to be "well settled" in many others. The Utah Supreme Court wrote an excellent treatise on the 14th Amendment, exposing it's flaws in text and how it was illegally ratified.

In spite of the flaws on these off-point topics, I highly recommend this book. Unfortunately his commentary on the 14th Amendment and on citizenship does undermine his scholarship a bit.