Replies

I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of the Constitution. Its entire purpose was to create a federal government with LIMITED power. Most of the document is spent in saying what the federal government can and can't do. Its purpose was to limit the federal government. No limits placed on the federal government in the constitution where ever meant to be placed upon the states. The states delegated certain powers, and retained all the rest. So are you trying to imply that the people of a sovereign state do not have the right to government of the people, by the people, and for the people? After all, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the people." While you are trying to imply that it would be illegal for the South to leave, if you actually look at the situation, it goes against EVERYTHING the founders taught and believed about good government to force a state to accept government to which they do not consent or to deny them the right to "institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Unless the rules said leaving required consultations and approval of the other members.

But the Constitution says no such thing. It never touches the topic, because that topic falls under the Tenth Amendment, as a right left to the States. :-)

Article I, Section 8 makes it clear that Congress exercises sole authority over the property of the other states. There is nothing in there that says when states leave they can take what they want.

Remember, the constitution only applies to states while they are in the Union. Congress and the constitution has no power over anything in any state which has withdrawn its delegated powers.

Regarding Fort Sumter, here are a couple interested articles for you to read:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/04/lincolns-war/

http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html

Lincoln in a letter to Gustavus Fox in May 1861. Fox was the commander of the expedition Abe sent to reinforce Ft. Sumter:

"You (FOX) and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result (WAR) .”

Oh I forgot to mention that Lincoln was in favor of secession before he was against it (typical politician flip flop). In 1848 he said that: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right."

I also forgot to mention that the principle of secession was being taught in the constitution classes at West Point in the early 1800s, classes and textbooks that the US government was paying for. In William Rawle's Views of the Constitution it said that

"It depends of the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle of which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which though not expressed, was mutually understood."

Rawle also had this to say about secession:

The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution. But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. To withdraw from the Union is a solemn, serious act. Whenever it may appear expedient to the people of a state, it must be manifest in a direct and unequivocal manner."

(As a note: Rawle was a Northerner [born in Philadelphia], a contemporary of the Founders, and his book was warmly received when published. The North American Review, a journal of Boston political orthodoxy, blessed his book as an "intelligent guide.")

As an American, Rawle knew that the Union was dear to all and offered many advantages to member states. But as an American, he also knew that when the people of a state felt that those advantages no longer existed and that the Union had become a thread to their happiness, the very reason for the Union's existence was no longer valid.

Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, said:
"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States choose to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right."

While you are trying to imply that it would be illegal for the South to leave...

I don't think I've ever said it was illegal for the South to leave, just the way they chose to. Secession, as Madison said, requires the approval of those staying as well as those leaving.

But the Constitution says no such thing. It never touches the topic, because that topic falls under the Tenth Amendment, as a right left to the States. :-)

It doesn't say what the process for leaving is. It's left to deduce that method from a clear reading of the Constitution itself. And it's pretty clear that any action involving admitting states, changing them one they've been admitted, and any actions that might affect the other states requires the consent of the states.

Remember, the constitution only applies to states while they are in the Union. Congress and the constitution has no power over anything in any state which has withdrawn its delegated powers.

But that property is still the property of the U.S. and only Congress can dispose of it.

Regarding Fort Sumter, here are a couple interested articles for you to read...

Napolitano's opinion and some Confederate leaders saying Lincoln provoked the war. What is that supposed to prove?