No he did not. And no it was not.
Several states expressly reserved the right to secede. New England talked about doing it before the South did it. It was simply assumed that it was allowable until Mr. Lincoln arbitrarily decided that he would not allow it.
Completely false. Madison, Jackson, Webster, Clay, and Buchanan are just a few of the leaders who had denied that the right to secede, or in Madison's case to unilaterally secede, existed.
When the Federal government unilaterally overrides the Constitution, what do you suggest that states do?
And how did the federal government unilaterally override the Constitution, forcing the Southern secession?
Ahhh at it again? What a laugh!
Mr. Buchanan
‘The question fairly stated is: Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a state into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a state. After much serious reflection, I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the federal government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not “necessary and proper for carrying into execution” any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution.
It appears from the proceedings of that body that on the 31st of May, 1787, the clause “authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a delinquent state” came up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed it in a brief but powerful speech, from which I shall extract but a single sentence. He observed:
“The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed and was never, I believe, again presented. Soon afterward, on the 8th of June, 1787, when incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: “Any government for the United States formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the states would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress,” evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the old Confederation.
Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a state is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. . . .
The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force. (Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1860, Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1860-1861, pp. 19-20)
NS;
You want to stop licking the boot long enough to take a look around? It's happening again in spades. We are taking a Constitutional enema right now.
The Constitution says clearly that no state shall be made out of the territory of another state without that state’s consent. Viginia was in no position to grant its consent and did not do so. Thus, the admission of West virginia was unconstitutional. This point is utterly clear.
But Lincoln was quite willing to encourage and reward that secession, which was illegal, in order to fight a legal secession.
Again, show me wehre in the Constitution it prohibits secession. The states created the Union; they are free to leave the Union if they choose. And when your rights are being violated, that is the ultimate mechanism. (”Fine, if you won’t abide by the rules, then we’ll sever our partnership and eforce those rules within our own borders.”)
If an umpire just calls all kinds of wild pitches strikes, do you think he should just be allowed to get away with that, or should the relationship be severed?
The New England states considered secession earlier in teh century. Many questioned the wisdom of it; no one questioned their right to do so. Somehow, when it was the South, it was different.
The south perceived that its rights and the Constitution were being violated by Lincoln’s internal improvement schemes and by the impostion of fess designed to exploit Southern labor for the bnenefit of the Northern states (at least that’s how the southerners saw it.) Furthermore, things like the Baltimore massacre looked like acts of pure tyranny not only to southerneres but to many people. Maryland’s state song still references it.