I appreciate the excellent and informative discussion. However, I find myself in general agreement with ConservativeNewYorker while I have issues with the interpretation of you other two.
Not to start another subject, all though it might, it seems to me the underpinning of this whole issue is one of economics and the federal power on which Lincoln relied.
IIRC, the issue arose when the rural South decided to buy equipment, specifically farm equipment, from England rather than from the manufacturers of such equipment in New England. The issue was price with the farmers thinking they were being gouged. Rather than lower their prices, the Northern manufacturers and politicians prevailed with Lincoln and the Congress and a tariff was impose on those manufactured products coming from England. That started the whole ruckus and Lincoln blockaded the ports to prevent the foreign products from being off loaded.
As they say, the rest is history.
The point is if one can say a state can leave without the consent of the other states because the Constitution does not specifically prevent it then states can get together and expel another state against its will because the Constitution does not explicitly prevent that either. True?
As my previous post indicated, all ousting one can harm the one while one freely leaving the others does no harm to the rest.
Doesn't it? Say Texas walked out tomorrow, you claim that there would be no harm to the rest of the states. But what about obligations the country entered into while Texas was as state? Treaties, Iraq, Afghanistan, all have to be borne by the other states because Texas has walked out of it. What about debt built up while Texas was a part of the country, aided in no small part by three recent Texan presidents? Texas has walked out on it leaving the remaining states to pick up the slack. What about federal property that Texas walks off with, highways and dams and what have you built with federal funds? Texas walks out with all that and no compensation for the other states. Social security, pensions, and the like, will the remaining states have to pay those to Texas residents while Texas gets off scott free?
States don't exist in a vacuum. Their actions impact the interests and well-being of the states around them. That includes when they leave.
IIRC, the issue arose when the rural South decided to buy equipment, specifically farm equipment, from England rather than from the manufacturers of such equipment in New England. The issue was price with the farmers thinking they were being gouged. Rather than lower their prices, the Northern manufacturers and politicians prevailed with Lincoln and the Congress and a tariff was impose on those manufactured products coming from England. That started the whole ruckus and Lincoln blockaded the ports to prevent the foreign products from being off loaded.
I think you recall incorrectly.
One of the more insidious aspects of the rebellion was how it affected the border states. Literally caught in the middle, the citizens of those states largely wished to stay out of the fray but, by virtue of placement and proximity, were forced to make the devils choice of staying with the Union they pledged allegiance to, or submit to the intimidation of the rebels.
Here is an instance of the jeopardy that I see Non-Sequitur referring to when he says that the actions of seceding state(s) affect more than their “personal” affairs. Virginia was literally torn apart. Would you not agree that the citizens of Virginia - or Tennessee or Kentucky for that matter - were honorable folks, whether they stayed in the Union or joined the rebellion?
Wouldn’t you also agree that the citizens of Virginia were harmed when they were forced to cast their lot?