(Vanity) Why is there no set process for a state to leave the union?

GraceG

[GraceG]

I have been reading about the periodical votes the Texas legislature makes about secession and pondered on it a while and thought a bit about it and came up with a few things.

1. We have a set of procedures for adding a state to the union in the Constitution.

2. We don't have any set of procedures if a majority of a state's population want to no longer be part of a union.

3. If the formation of the country was the voluntary gathering of states to form the union in the first place, then wouldn't forcing a state to stay against the majority of it's inhabitant's will essentially by tyranny?

4. If you added a process for a state to leave you would by default make that process be somewhat harder than if a territory wanted to become a state. Say for instance Saskatchewan was able to leave Canada peacefully, but then after a while wanted to become a state of the United States, if they wanted to leave later you would want an ever greater majority to on the vote to leave than the vote to join.

5. The civil was was caused by the illegal actions and military actions of the southern states ganging up, forming their own country illegally and then attacking the north. (though there is still some debate who fired first). If there had been a legal process and procedure for states to leave and then later form the confederacy, would the civil war had been averted if they had in that case "stuck to procedure" ?

6. Does a government body that has a process for admittance of smaller entities, but doesn't have any process for them leaving. Does that make that government a Tyranny by default? Does this make the United States a Tyranny by definition? What about the European Union? What about NATO, or the UN even?

Just some pondering about the very nature of "Unions" in the Nation-State sense.

[Bull Snipe]

sore looser

[Bull Snipe]

that is hard to say. Given the Courts Decision in Sanford v Scott (Dred Scott). I could easily see the Taney court deciding for SC.

The South was not the only people to make money off of the cotton trade. The bankers in Philadelphia, New York City and Boston lent millions to Southern planters. A prime field slave cost over a thousand dollars. Each years cotton crop was planted with borrowed money and it was paid back when the crop sold. The vast majority of ships used to carry Southern Cotton to markets in Europe and to New England were owed by Northerners. The companies that insured those ships and cargos were largely Northern based.
When cotton shipped by rail, it was shipped in cars made in the North, on rails made in the North and pulled by locomotives made in the North. Even if the South seceded, Northern business would still loan, insure and transport Southern cotton because all the South could actually do is grow the stuff. The great wealth generated by cotton did not generate any significant political power for the South. The House of Representatives was firmly in the hands the more populous Northern states. The Senate majority was controlled by States where slavery was illegal, and in 1860, a Northerner won the Presidency. The South actually had almost no influence in the Government of the United States.

[Starboard]

Thank you for the informative reply. Those are some great business and political insights that provide a good perspective on a complicated issue.

Best regards. I look forward to reading other comments by you.

[BroJoeK]

Wingy: "I think Lincoln settled that one.
It’s like Hotel California.
Once in, you can never leave."

GraceG: "Well yes, but the south did leave illegally, even if there was no set process to leave in the first place."

Anyone who's followed CW threads over the years knows by now there are two separate, almost unconnected issues:

1. Declarations of secession -- were they constitutional & lawful?

2. Civil War -- why did it start & last so long?

Revisionist propagandists for the Confederacy wish us to believe it's a simple matter of: Lincoln invaded the South because it declared secession from Big Government tyranny.
But the truth is more complicated.

The first question is: how can states constitutionally secede?
Well, there are at least two methods, the first suggested by Article 4, section 3 of the Constitution:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union..."

Congress can vote states in, so Congress can logically vote them out again.
It can also impose reasonable requirements, such as voter referendums, legislative super-majorities, assumption of percentages of national debts & other obligations, etc.

The second method of constitutional secession is suggested by sergeantdave in post #64 above, and in Article 5 which provides for both amendments and a constitutional convention of the states.
Such a convention could abolish the United States and reform it as two or more independent, or semi-independent nations.
Literally, there are no restrictions on what such a convention might produce, provided it is then approved by 3/4 of the states.

Since nothing like that happened in 1861, even sympathetic northerners, such as Doughfaced Democrat President Buchanan, found Deep South declarations of secession unlawful.

Which brings us to the second issue: Civil War.
In early 1861, both Buchanan and Lincoln believed that while secession was unconstitutional, the Federal Government could do nothing to stop it.
So, as Lincoln announced in his First Inaugural (March 4, 1861) secessionists could not have a war unless they themselves started it.
Which they soon did.

In fact, every declaration of secession was immediately accompanied, and often preceded, by secessionists' provocations of war: seizing dozens of major Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc. -- threatening Union officials and firing on Union ships.
Simultaneously the Confederacy called up 100,000 troops at a time when the entire US army was circa 17,000 most scattered in small forts out west.
Then on April 12, 1861, the Confederacy started war by military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, resulting in two Union deaths.
Finally, on May 6, 1861 the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, and simultaneously sent military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in Union Missouri.

All that happened before a single Confederate soldier was killed directly in battle with any Union force, and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate state.

So, Civil War came not because of secession, but rather because the Confederacy wanted it, no doubt to establish their own bonifides as a legit new country.
Further, the Civil War lasted roughly 1,460 days, and could have ended on any one of them, under much better terms than "unconditional surrender" and abolition, had the Confederacy sued for peace.

So, who is responsible for starting war, and it's continuation through four bloody years?
Clearly and solely, the Confederate leadership.

[Nifster]

True words.

Unfortunately there seem to be some Lost Cause folks here that get their history from the Kennefy brothers

[BroJoeK]

georgiarat: "LIncoln had no intention except to force the South into War."

Rubbish.
In fact, Lincoln announced in his Inaugural on March 4, 1861 that secessionists could not have war unless they themselves started it.
Then Lincoln continued previous President Buchanan's policy of attempting to resupply Fort Sumter.
So the decision to use Lincoln's resupply mission as their excuse to start Civil War by launching their long prepared assault on Fort Sumter, that decision was strictly Jefferson Davis & company.

Davis was not "forced" to do anything.
Instead, he chose war, freely, willingly and indeed eagerly, for the obvious reason that he expected to win it.

georgiarat: " LIncoln instituted the income tax, that was illegal.
LIncoln suspended habeus corpus that was illegal.
One can find over ten actions he took that were illegal under the laws and struck down by the courts."

More rubbish.
First, since all of Lincoln's actions were in response to the Confederacy's declared war against the United States, they are allowed by the Constitution and were approved by Congress.
None were "struck down" by the courts.

georgiarat: "He further condoned the pillaging and rape by Sherman of property and person on Sherman’s March through GA and SC."

Setting aside all false accusations against Sherman, the behavior of Sherman's troops was not materially different from most Confederate behavior during their invasions into Union states & territories.
They took what they needed, they destroyed anything of military value too big to take and they left the civilian population unharmed.

Further, your false accusations of "rape" against Union troops are more than matched by the factual, indeed undenied, Confederate kidnappings of free-blacks in Northern states, returning them to slavery in the South.

Bottom line: it's sometimes claimed that Union generals like Sherman started "total war" which reached its ultimate expression during WWII, killing tens of millions of civilians.
The reality is that what Sherman or Confederate troops did is in no way comparable to the mass slaughters of other wars.

[x]

They didn’t want to jinx things. If they’d included a procedure for leaving the union, states would have dropped out in the early days of the republic.

[x]

The states weren't readmitted to the union because the U.S. position was that they'd never left. However, after walking out of Congress, their congressional delegations had to be readmitted to the House and Senate. Look it up.

That's true. That so many people use the word "readmitted" is an indication that the ex-Confederates must have had a very good PR firm.

[x]

Lincoln’s racial attitudes were mainstream for his time. Lincoln was no more a racist than any American of his era and considerably less a racist than any of the southron slavers.

Very true. But how did he miss that a lot of African-Americans nowadays aren't that keen on Lincoln anyway? Nor is Lincoln "Obama's hero," though people and politicians from Illinois play up the Lincoln connection for all they can get from it.

[BroJoeK]

Bull Snipe: "South Carolina should have sued in Federal Court for their secession.
I would expect the Taney Supreme Court would have declared their right to secession as Constitutional."

Sure, Taney maybe.
But the US Constitution clearly assigns such questions to Congress, constitutional amendment or a convention of the states.

What Taney may have done is declare some anti-slavery action of the Federal Government unconstitutional & illegal.
But of course, in 1861 there were no such actions, and without Confederates' withdrawal from Congress there never could have been.

[BroJoeK]

Bull Snipe: "Am reasonably sure that the average Japanese citizen view of United States actions in WWII were similar to that of those in the South after the Civil War."

Based on postings from others in threads about Hiroshima & Nagasaki, it appears that Japanese children are being grossly mal-educated about their own history in WWII.
They learn in great detail the suffering of Japanese, but nothing about the millions of civilians killed by Japanese in countries they conquered.

US education is, if anything, even worse, Blaming America First for all the world's ills -- present & historical.
However, even in the South I doubt if public school children are taught that "Ape" Lincoln was "Lucifer in the flesh", as the former Speaker might say.
So those who somehow learn that version of "history" must be picking it up elsewhere.

[BroJoeK]

georgiarat: "When the South briefly invaded the North they did so honorably paying, even in basically worthless money, for what they took."

"Worthless" being the operative word here.
In fact, there were numerous Confederate invasions of Union states & territories -- only two of which were under Lee's command (Antietam & Gettysburg).
In every case, Confederates "lived off the land", took what they needed, destroyed anything of military value they could not take (i.e., railroad bridges), and sometimes destroyed civilian property (i.e., Chambersburg PA).
Regardless of false accusations, both Union & Confederate armies treated civilians reasonably, killing very few and nearly all of those accidentally.
But the Confederate Army always did something for which there is no Union equivalent: Confederates kidnapped free Northern blacks, returning them for sale as slaves in the South.

Central_Va: "At the time of Lee's invasion of PA in 1863 the exchange rate was $0.25 CSD to $1.00 USD."

Still basically worthless because: 1) all "sales" were in fact requisitions, forced not voluntary, 2) Prices, such as they were, were set by Confederates, and 3) Confederate money was "fiat money" backed by nothing and subject to rapid inflation.
For example, by the end of 1863 the dollar you say was worth $.25 in July was quoted at $.06.

[Tau Food]

So, like Islam, you’re free to join but never free to leave... In the Land of the Free...

Let me correct that. In fact, if you were born here, you never joined, but you have the freedom to leave. You just can't force your neighbors to leave with you. Your neighbors are American citizens and each of them has a right to remain American citizens even if you have grown tired of that status.

[rockrr]

But how did he miss that a lot of African-Americans nowadays aren't that keen on Lincoln anyway?

How could Lincoln know that blacks would trade one form of democrat-sponsored slavery for another?

[central_va]

The Unions Armies standing orders, especially in the Ga/SC campaign were to specifically target/destroy civilian means of farming and to demoralize/terrorize the civilian population. The stated purpose of the campaign was to target civilian means of support the Confederacy. So your post is total bull sh!t.

In contrast Confederate standing orders were to never harms civilians, pillage or destroy any non military thing. To do so the Rebel soldier would be subject to severe NJP. The two situations were exactly the opposite in every way. The reason why the Chambersburg incident was so widely publicized because it was totally out of character for the Confederate Army/Cavalry to do that.

Rewriting history is something that should be left for communists and fascists. Unless....

[central_va]

If 80% of my neighbors vote for secession were out of this fetid corpse of a union.

[greeneyes]

Good points and interesting. Since the Federal Government has only enumerated powers, and all others are the province of the various states, wouldn’t succession also be a state’s right issue?

Of course, the question was addressed by the force of the civil war. Not something I’d want to see again, but I wouldn’t mind if some of the more liberal states succeeded today. That way all liberal the movie stars wouldn’t have to leave for a foreign country.

[Tau Food]

If 80% of my neighbors vote for secession were out of this fetid corpse of a union.

I'm convinced that you're miserable, but I doubt that it has much to do with your location. I wish I could help. ;-)

[central_va]

Trump is making me happy. Is it sure thing? No. But if he can stop this mad rush to a global one world government then I am all for it.

Anyone who thinks the Republic isn't a fetid corpse at this point is delusional.

[BroJoeK]

Bull Snipe: "all the South could actually do is grow the stuff.
The great wealth generated by cotton did not generate any significant political power for the South.
The House of Representatives was firmly in the hands the more populous Northern states..."

Sorry, some of what you've posted is just fine, but you're pushing your points way too far.

Let's start here:
In 1860 the Southern economy was not nearly as industrialized as the North's, but in the whole world it was second only to the North and small areas of Britain or Germany.
Both Virginia and Tennessee had significant industries which became important in the war effort.
Yes, railroads in the South were not as advanced as Northern, but there were still enough to move products to market, or troops to battle.
Perhaps most interestingly, by 1860 white Southerners were, on average, the most prosperous people on earth, and they well knew it.
More important, they fully understood the sources of their prosperity.

As for their political power, the South had dominated Washington DC politics from Day One of the Republic.
That was due both to the well-earned respect for such Southern leaders as George Washington, Jefferson & Madison, and to the Constitution's 3/5 rule, which gave slave-holders disproportionate representation over Northern non-slave holders.

One result was, before 1860 there had never been an openly anti-slavery President, and Southern Democrats had dominated Congress, the Supreme Court and the military virtually continuously, from the beginning.
As recently as 1856 many Northerners joined the South in electing sympathetic ("doughfaced") Democrats to Congress and the Presidency, giving them almost a monopoly over the Supreme Court.

And that was the rub: with the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott decision, many Democrat Northerners suddenly found they had more in common with their abolitionist Republican neighbors than with Southern Democrats.
So in 1858 Democrat majorities began to wither, and after November 1860, for the first time ever, both Congress and the Presidency were controlled by Republicans.

But the key point to remember is that the Deep South did not wait for any anti-slavery actions from Washington, DC, but began to organize for secession within a few days after the election in November 1860.
That means they declared secessions "at pleasure", rather than for material just cause, and that made their actions constitutionally illegitimate.