Finally, virtually everyone posting here in defense of Lincoln and the Union, would agree with Lincoln that secession could be perfectly legal, if approved by Congress.
But lacking such Congressional approval, Lincoln’s constitutional duty was to preserve the union against rebellion, invasion and domestic violence — and that’s just what he did.
Neither Abraham Lincoln nor the Union would have ever let the South secede, because it wasn’t in their economic interest to do so. They needed an impoverished South to exploit, where they could obtain cheap agricultural and raw goods for their growing industrial machine.
If you’ll direct your attention to the excellent posts of Idabilly (#95 & #100) you’ll see a number of statements and declarations from the ratifications conventions of the Constitution, made by some of the Founding Fathers, no less! They are CRYSTAL CLEAR! These States would NEVER have ratified the Constitution had they not retained the RIGHT to, at any time, by virtue of the State’s act ALONE, rescind their action and withdraw from the compact and withdraw their representatives from the Washington Government.
The idea that a State must ask “permission” from Congress to secede from the Union legally is preposterous on its face! Would the oppressed ask permission of a tyrant to be set free? And would the tyrant grant such a request when HE ALONE is benefiting from such an arrangement?? Absurd!! The “Union mindset” on display!
No, they would exercise the natural right of rebellion. But Lost Causers refuse to admit that the south rebelled. They demand the protection of the law while rejecting the law's authority.
The first absurdity here is the fact that many Southern Cause defenders have posted on Free Republic claiming:
So, was it Southern poverty or wealth which drove the North to dimentia?
The second absurdity is that the South never made the slightest attempt to seek Congressional approval for secession.
So it's impossible to say for sure whether such an attempt would have been successful or not.
Remember this: our Founders did not just wake up one morning, and out of the clear blue sky declare independence.
Instead, they spent years and years negotiating and trying to reach better terms with the British government.
Only after all else failed, and after war itself had already started, did our Founders finally declare independence.
And the Declaration itself included a long list of grievances, including in earlier drafts, a complaint against British imposed slavery.
In 1860 the Deep South did none of that: no negotiations, no long list of grievances, no efforts to reconcile, no waiting until war had already broken out before declaring independence.
Instead, the South simply declared itself seceded, then started a War of Independence to prove it.
The third absurdity is that the South effectively controlled the Federal Government all the way up through 1858, and was still in 1860 the largest single voting block.
So nothing the South strongly opposed could pass Congress, and even if it somehow did, Dough-face Buchanan was their President.
So, if some Southern states had wanted to secede at any time, they could have easily done so, "by mutual consent," with no war or other violence necessary.
Even in 1861, having lost their majorities in Congress, Southern states still wielded huge influence and could certainly have used it in time-honored political fashion to, ahem, influence other representatives to vote their way.
But I have long argued here that peaceful secession was not what the South wanted.
What they wanted was a successful Second War of Independence, and that explains all their actions.
patriot preacher: "If you’ll direct your attention to the excellent posts of Idabilly (#95 & #100) you’ll see a number of statements and declarations from the ratifications conventions of the Constitution, made by some of the Founding Fathers, no less!"
I've seen all these before. They have no effect on the real situation in 1860.
First of all, Patrick Henry voted against ratifying the Constitution, so his opinions on it have no effect whatever. Discard them totally.
Second, the Virginia ratifying language speaks only of Federal powers being "perverted to their [the states'] injury or oppression.".
In 1860 there were no Federal "perversions," no "injury" and no "oppression."
So the Deep South first seceded, in Madison's words: "at pleasure." Again in Madison's words:
"It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."
patriot preacher: "These States would NEVER have ratified the Constitution had they not retained the RIGHT to, at any time, by virtue of the State’s act ALONE, rescind their action and withdraw from the compact and withdraw their representatives from the Washington Government."
Go back and read them again.
That's not what Virginia's ratification statement says.
Nor is it what James Madison understood and wrote at the time to his friend Alexander Hamilton in New York.
I'll repeat what I've said before: according to Madison and Virginia's ratification statement the necessary conditions for secession are: "mutual consent" or Federal abuses, usurpations, injury and oppression having that same effect.
But none of those conditions -- not one -- existed in 1860. The Deep South first seceded "at pleasure."
patriot preacher: "The idea that a State must ask “permission” from Congress to secede from the Union legally is preposterous on its face!
Would the oppressed ask permission of a tyrant to be set free?
And would the tyrant grant such a request when HE ALONE is benefiting from such an arrangement??
Absurd!!
The “Union mindset” on display!"
And yet "mutual consent" was the first requirement for lawful secession.
And considering that the South effectively controlled the Federal Government all those years, it could have seceded lawfully almost any time it seriously wanted to.
Even in 1861, the South had the biggest single voting block in Congress, and could have easily negotiated its way to a peaceful and lawful resolution of any legitimate complaints.
But the South had no legitimate complaints, of course.
Its real motivation was the necessity to continue expanding slavery into non-slave territories and states.
Since anti-slavery Republicans would constitutionally prohibit that, the South must necessarily secede to protect it's "peculiar institution."
Secession in 1860 had nothing to do with the Constitution, or possibly legitimate reasons, and everything to do with expanding slavery.