Replies

That is not a fact. It is a legal/constitutional opinion not shared by Andrew Jackson, James Madison, George Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, or, of course, Lincoln. It depends totally on the interpretation of the constitutional convention as a "compact," which most respected historians specializing in that era---John C. Miller, Gordon Wood, for example---reject. Most of the Founders (though not all---such as George Mason) held a view of society that could be called "organic": once a constitution put a "body" together, no "part" could secede from another. That is why Madison forcefully rejected the Hartford Convention's claims and Jackson rejected SC's claims in the Tariff of Abominations.

So to understand the context of the ratification, you have to analyze what these Founders thought "ratification" to imply---and to all but a few (at times Jefferson and Madison, at times, not)---this meant "organic." The South could no more secede than an arm can secede from a body without the blood loss killing it.

It is a myth of the "neo-confederate" historians that the "compact" theory was the one the Founders subscribed to.

Note, for example, that as far back as the DECLARATION (which is the foundational document for the constitution), even JEFFERSON did not say that the "colonies" were the final authority in seceding from England, but the "people" because the Americans were no longer English, but a different people.

The fact remains, the South should have had the right to secede and the North should have respected and honoured that right.

The south did have a right to secede -- a revolutionary right. But they didn't have the power to establish their revolution.

However, there is no right to state unilateral secession under U.S. law. That was made plain in the Supeme Court's ruling in the Prize Cases. That ruling, as you know, gives the president the power under acts passed in 1795 and 1807 to suppress insurrection against a state or the United States.

Walt

The fact remains, the South should have had the right to secede and the North should have respected and honoured that right.

Should have, could have, would have. There was no right to unilateral secession and to even maintain that position in the face of direct statements of the framers is to see those framers as hopelessly naive pontificators with no sense of political reality. The Constitution was written and ratified with all the means and authority necessary for the congress and executive to compel allegiance through force.

The south could have easily withdrawn from the union if they had followed constitutional procedures. But that would have entailed treaties establishing recognized national borders and no small expense upon the departing states to make their sister states whole for the common investments. The south's intention was not a peaceful separation but the establishment of a government with sufficient military strength to repudiate debts and to claim western lands for the expansion of slavery that they could not get through the electoral process. They sought to do with force and threats of force what they could not achieve at the polling place. That, by any definition, is a common rebellion.