Replies

“There’s three clauses in Article IV, Section 2. 1) Which exact clause was violated and 2) HOW was it violated by applying the facts of the situation you’re citing?”

The Memphis Avalanche addressed the issues at the time in this way:

“Have not the governors of two free States violated the clause of the Constitution for the rendition of fugitives from justice, and to make the violation the more infamous, interpret it to cover the retreat of two of the John Brown conspirators? Did not the governor of Ohio refuse to obey the requisition of the governor of Tennessee for a Negro thief? Is not the clause of the Constitution powerless, and did not two Black Republican governors make it so? Were not these governors and Legislatures, which have thus destroyed these two essential provisions of the Constitution, sworn to support that instrument, and is it probable that Lincoln will regard his oath any more than they have shown themselves to regard it?”

U.S. Secretary of State, and former Massachusetts Senator, Daniel Webster had years earlier warned his northern brethren of the dangers of a one-sided view of the constitution:

“If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.”

Northern state violations of the constitution's covenants are not discussed much in government schools today, but they were on the minds of a lot of people in the South before the decision was made to leave the union created by Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Mason. And the Lees.

Ah, the infamous Fugitive Slave Clause which was, nevertheless, valid until the Reconstruction Amendments after the War was over. That would be Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 3.

the governor of Ohio refuse to obey the requisition of the governor of Tennessee for a Negro thief...

Did Tennessee sue in federal court regarding this?

and is it probable that Lincoln will regard his oath any more than they have shown themselves to regard it?

Ah, here is the rub. The South's justification is anticipatory constitutional violations. That is not valid justification for secession according to the D of I. The South anticipated all kinds of "probabilities", but the D of I template is "a long train abuses and usurpations" which in this case would be multiple cases of unconstitutional federal acts pleaded for in federal court but unredressed.

The only specific grievance mentioned here was between two states, not with the feds. If Tennessee failed to bring the matter before a federal court, then they failed to give the feds a chance to right a constitutional wrong. This isn't a "long train" of wrongs by the feds. So far I haven't seen any unconstitutional acts by the feds.

It would appear the South falls way short of valid secession.