From the Carolinas to Catalonia, the temptation of secession
Although secession is largely a relic of U.S. history, the secessionist movement in the Catalonia region of Spain found new life over the weekend.
Pro-independence parties won an absolute majority in the Catalan regional assembly on September 27, and see their victory as a mandate to separate from Spain and establish themselves as a sovereign county. Catalan leaders say that they will be pursuing a plan to become an independent state within 18 months, and are now crafting institutions like a central bank and army.
These separatists are fighting for independence from Spain principally because of cultural differences and economic grievances. Catalan language and culture are distinct from those of Spain at large; the separatists feel their identity is undermined and unaccepted beyond their borders. Furthermore, they believe Spain taking advantage of Catalonia—the region contributes 20 percent of the country’s GDP, but investment from the central government is seen as lackluster and unequitable.
Secessionist movements in Catalonia have gained popular appeal in recent years, but have encountered legal obstacles. In 2006, voters approved a “statute of autonomy” by referendum, which gave more powers to the local government and declared the region a “nation.” After a protracted legal fight, the Spanish Constitutional Court struck down many of the provisions of the statute. The Court ruled that Catalonia is not a nation, but rather a nationality within “the only and indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation.”
Although the Spanish constitution does not explicitly prohibit secession, it describes unity among states and says that it is based on the “common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards.” It recognizes local self-governance, but guarantees national and common “solidarity” among regions.
Many Spanish constitutional scholars believe that, under the Spanish constitution, “secession is completely illegal,” and argue that constitutional reform would be required for such a change. Nevertheless, the newly emboldened Catalan leaders plan to pursue their plan, starting with an official declaration from the regional parliament that they are pursuing independence.
But Spanish Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Saenz de Santamaria has said that the central government will use “juridical and judicial instruments” to stop any developments towards independence that they deem illegal. And earlier this month, the Constitutional Court signaled that it is willing to curtail Catalan efforts, striking down a law that would lead to the establishment of a Catalan treasury.
How does the Spanish saga compare to the American struggle?
Shortly after the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, 11 states, led by South Carolina, declared secession from the U.S. In making their case for the legality of their choice, proponents pointed to our founding documents.
Since the Constitution does not expressly prohibit secession, they argued, secession was a power reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. Advocates also cited the Declaration of Independence, which asserted the right to alter, abolish and “institute a new government” should the former power overstep its limits.
Lincoln didn’t buy these arguments. He declared in his First Inaugural Address that “no state, upon its own mere notion, can lawfully get out of the Union. … [I]n view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken.” Through the Constitution, the Union was perpetual. States seeking to break away, said Lincoln, “can only do so against law and by revolution.”
Of course, the South disregarded Lincoln’s appeals, and a bloody Civil War in effect settled the debate. After the war, however, the Supreme Court put the constitutional question to rest.
In Texas v. White, Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote that the Constitution, “in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.” Thus, the states which claimed secession never actually did so; they were, in fact, part of the United States throughout the Civil War.
Jonathan Stahl is an intern at the National Constitution Center. He is also a senior at the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in politics, philosophy and economics.
Recent Stories on Constitution Daily
The ‘religious issue’: John F. Kennedy, Mitt Romney, and the role of faith in American politics
The Supreme Court “long conference” is today – and why we care