From what part of the Constitution do you draw this opinion? Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit states from leaving, and if it is not prohibited then it falls under the Tenth Amendment (rights left to the states).
Not sure why you are getting all confused about the supposed difference between joining and being admitted. The point is that all the states that entered the union came in voluntarily, they were not forced.
They walked out without discussion. They walked away from any responsibility for debt or treaty obligations the country took on while they were a part. The walked away with every bit of government property they could get their hands on. Seems to me that conduct like that was guaranteed to lead to more that simple disagreement.
Government property, lol. Whatever was government property in those states was delegated to the government for use while the state was under the federal government. Once out of the union, all rights to such property reverted back to the states. Why would the states allow foreign governments to own property on their land?
It had been pretty peaceful from the time the states announced their secession up to the point where the South blew up Fort Sumter. So it's not that the North wouldn't let them go in peace, the South chose not to leave in peace.
Not sure if you are aware that Lincoln made the first move of the war, and did so in a cunning way which would make the South appear the aggressor:
April 8, 1861 Lincoln started the war by a surprise attack on Charleston Harbor with a fleet of U.S. warships led by the USS Harriet Lane to occupy Fort Sumter, a Federal tax collection fort in the territorial waters of South Carolina. April 29, 1861 President Jefferson Davis described the South’s response in self-defense in his Message To the Confederate States Congress: “These preparations commenced in secrecy and on the 5th, 6th, and 7th of April transports and vessels of war with troops, munitions, and military supplies sailed from Northern ports bound southward.” “That this maneuver (Lincoln’s surprise attack) failed in its purpose was not the fault of those who contrived it. A heavy tempest delayed the arrival of the expedition.” “I directed a proposal to be made to the commander of Fort Sumter that we would abstain from directing our fire on Fort Sumter if he would promise not to open fire on our forces unless first attacked.” “This proposal was refused and the conclusion was reached that the design of the United States was to place the besieging (Confederate) force at Charleston between the simultaneous fire of the (U.S.) fleet and the fort.” “There remained, therefore, no alternative but to direct that the fort (Sumter) should at once be reduced (on April 12).” (Paragraphs 8-9)
From a purely business and economic standpoint, an independent Confederacy would have had almost no impact on the rest of the U.S.
No doubt they would have continued to sell cotton to the US. However you are wrong to supposed that it would have had no impact. The impact would have been huge. There would have been a huge loss of federal revenue since the South paid such a large proportion of the tariffs. And because there would be no tariff, the South would be buying more of the cheaper European goods, and the economy up North would suffer. Thus the South was the gainer and the North the loser economically. That is why the North would not let the South go. Perhaps later when I am not at work (am on lunch) I can attached some articles from Northern newspapers in which they are fretting about how much Southern secession was going to damage their economy. :-)
It's not whether or not a state can leave, it's the manner of leaving. And since the approval of the other states are required to join the Union and the approval of the other states are needed for a state to split or join with another state and the approval of the other states is needed for a state to acquire territory from a foreign country then it's no great stretch to assume that the approval of the other states is needed for a state to leave entirely. Certainly Madison thought so.
Not sure why you are getting all confused about the supposed difference between joining and being admitted. The point is that all the states that entered the union came in voluntarily, they were not forced.
I don't think I'm the one with the confusion because you seem to equate the way states join the union now with how the original 13 states joined. Certainly they joined through referendum. There wasn't any other way to do it since there was no Congress to vote to admit them. But the 37 states that have been created since then all required permission to join. And that permission could be refused; Colorado tried for years to join and Kansas went though half a dozen constitutions before Congress admitted them. The point was to refute your claim that states joined the union as if they just ratified the Constitution and sent people to D.C.
Whatever was government property in those states was delegated to the government for use while the state was under the federal government. Once out of the union, all rights to such property reverted back to the states.
From what part of the Constitution do you draw this opinion?
Why would the states allow foreign governments to own property on their land?
When the property didn't belong to the state in the first place?
Not sure if you are aware that Lincoln made the first move of the war, and did so in a cunning way which would make the South appear the aggressor...
The old "Lincoln made us start the war" argument.
April 8, 1861 Lincoln started the war by a surprise attack on Charleston Harbor with a fleet of U.S. warships led by the USS Harriet Lane to occupy Fort Sumter, a Federal tax collection fort in the territorial waters of South Carolina.
What half-assed Confederate propaganda site did you steal that one from? To begin with, there was no "sneak attack". South Carolina knew Lincolns plans and intentions because he told them before a single ship sailed. Secondly, Sumter was not a "Federal tax collection fort". I mean really? How badly do you have to mangle the English language to come up with an crazy term like that? Tariffs were collected in customs houses, and there was a very nice one in Charleston right there on the docks where the ships were. Forts were used to defend ports.
April 29, 1861 President Jefferson Davis described the South’s response in self-defense in his Message To the Confederate States Congress: “These preparations commenced in secrecy and on the 5th, 6th, and 7th of April transports and vessels of war with troops, munitions, and military supplies sailed from Northern ports bound southward.”
Actually those ships did not leave until April 9th. And on April 6th Lincoln sent a representative to Governor Pickens with the following message: "An attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumters with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw men, arms or ammunition will be made." So of it was such a big secret to Davis then why didn Pickens tell him of the message when he got it?
“This proposal was refused and the conclusion was reached that the design of the United States was to place the besieging (Confederate) force at Charleston between the simultaneous fire of the (U.S.) fleet and the fort.”
Well having gotten everything else wrong before that why would it be surprising that Davis would stumble to the wrong conclusion here? In spite of the fact that his own Secretary of State told him that firing on the fort put the Confederacy in the wrong.
However you are wrong to supposed that it would have had no impact. The impact would have been huge. There would have been a huge loss of federal revenue since the South paid such a large proportion of the tariffs.
OK so let's start there. In spite of the fact that I know other posters have provided information that tariff collections in the North outstripped tariff collections in the South by something like 15:1 or 20:1 you all keep clinging to that claim. So please tell me what it was that the South was importing in such massive quantities that they provided most of the tariff revenue? Why is it that Alexander Stephens himself said the North provided three-quarters of the overseas business for the country? How could it be that even after losing the South, and all that revenue you claim they provided, that in his 1864 message to Congress Lincoln mentions that tariff revenue had more than doubled since the beginning of the war? How would that be possible if you are correct?
And because there would be no tariff, the South would be buying more of the cheaper European goods, and the economy up North would suffer.
Perhaps later when I am not at work (am on lunch) I can attached some articles from Northern newspapers in which they are fretting about how much Southern secession was going to damage their economy. :-)
Because newspaper editorials are never, ever opinionated at all right? Well when I get home I can post a speech from a representative to Georgia to the Virginia secession convention promising them that it they didn't like the tariffs that were on imported goods then he was sure that the Confederate congress would raise them as high as Virginia wanted them to be. Kind of funny, what with tariffs being such a big reason for rebelling and all.