It was to every state's advantage to stay a member of the confederation for protection, for trade, for stability, etc. Why would a state or a people vote to leave unless they perceived it was better outside of the confederation than inside it? States didn't leave on whims. The confederation held together for some 70 years before it failed.
A major compromise over slavery in the Constitution (the return of fugitive slaves) was being disobeyed by the North. If that was important and fundamental to the South, why should they stay in a confederation whose governing document was not being obeyed?
Republicans were coming into power saying there were higher laws than the Constitution. In other words, we're going to interpret it any way we like, much like liberal judges today. Despite Lincoln's assurances over slavery after he was elected, he previously had said, "this government cannot endure permanently, half slave, and half free." In Lincoln-speak, we're not going to continue the arrangement set up by the founding fathers. Which Lincoln should you believe, the one who made assurances over slavery or the one who threatened its existence?
Then there was the tariff. Through the tariff, the South was being treated as a colony by the North. Basically, it operated as a transfer of money from the South to the North.
That was not my question.
The question was, if secession is a right of the states, can a majority of states elect to secede from the minority of states?
How about the Red states seceding from the Blue states?
A major compromise over slavery in the Constitution (the return of fugitive slaves) was being disobeyed by the North.
Well, that is a false statement.
The South did not like the fact that the Northern States balked at returning the slaves and went crying to the federal gov't to make those same sovereign states abide by the Constitution.
Lincoln told the South that the law was in the Constitution and would be upheld.
If that was important and fundamental to the South, why should they stay in a confederation whose governing document was not being obeyed?
It was being obeyed.
But ofcourse, the South did not like the idea that the North was opposing its efforts in retrieving slaves, even slaves who had lived as free men for years and had families.
Still the law was being upheld and Federal troops were being used to enforce it.
Republicans were coming into power saying there were higher laws than the Constitution. In other words, we're going to interpret it any way we like, much like liberal judges today. Despite Lincoln's assurances over slavery after he was elected, he previously had said, "this government cannot endure permanently, half slave, and half free." In Lincoln-speak, we're not going to continue the arrangement set up by the founding fathers. Which Lincoln should you believe, the one who made assurances over slavery or the one who threatened its existence?
Lincoln had no power to just do what he wanted.
He was not omnipotent.
He had a Congress and a Supreme Court to contend with and in peacetime, he would have had alot less power.
He had strong opposition, both from the Northern Democrats and Southerners.
Moreover, the South did not even allow Lincoln's name to be put on the ballots in the South, so much for your freedom loving people.
Then there was the tariff. Through the tariff, the South was being treated as a colony by the North. Basically, it operated as a transfer of money from the South to the North.
The Tarriffs of the 50's were fairly low.
had the South not left in 1860 they could have blocked the tarriff that was passed when 14 Southern Senators left.
The South had no moral justification for secession.
They had the rights of representation, even using the slaves 3/4 rule to be overrepresented.