First of all, the US Constitution is *NOT* our founding document. I can prove quite conclusively that all questions of citizenship during that era count US citizenship as having began July 4, 1776. There were many such cases in the courts, and the courts have always ruled that the Nation began, July 4, 1776.
And what document marks the occasion of the founding of the US nation? It is the Declaration of Independence.
The US Constitution was not even the first constitution. That was the "Articles of Confederation", and that was written prior to November 15, 1777.
The US Constitution is in fact the third fundamental legal document of the US nation.
.
.
Second of all, the US Constitution says nothing about forbidding secession. It is as silent as the tomb on the subject of states leaving, and I argue that this is because the Declaration established this as a fundamental right 11 years earlier, and so it was pointless to say anything further on the subject of a fundamental rights for states to leave.
But wait! New York, one of the most powerful states in the Union stated quite clearly in their ratification statement that they had a right to take back their powers given up to the Federal government. I.E. "secession." Do you think the legislatures of the state of New York were so stupid or ignorant to say such a thing without it being true?
But wait! Virginia, another of the most powerful states in the Union, also stated quite clearly in their ratification statement that they too had the right to take back their powers given up to the Federal government. Were the Virginia Legislatures so stupid or ignorant as to say such a thing without it being true?
But wait! Rhode Island, little nobody state that really shouldn't even be a state, also said that they could take back their powers, yada yada yada.
In 1812, Massachusetts and Connecticut asserted they had the right to leave. South Carolina asserted they had the right to leave in the 1830s, as did many other states.
So where do people get this idea that the Constitution forbade it? What proof does anyone offer that it did? And what proof is better than the proof i've already presented that it didn't?
The idea that it was all about economics is your own idea.
I would like to take credit for it, but I have discovered that many other people also thought of it before I did, though I did not know about this when I pieced it together myself.
Northerners thought they were fighting for the country and its constitution.
Yes they did. They were quite masterfully manipulated into both believing secession was illegal, and that they had a duty to go down south and kill people who just wanted to be free of their system of governance.
Lincoln declared secession unconstitutional, and with absolutely no good proof that this is correct, and he declared secession is "rebellion", even though that this is based on his first erroneous assertion that States didn't have a right to leave, and he contrived a very clever incident to make it look like the Southerners were irrationally and violently attacking US forces with absolutely no provocation in order to stir the passions necessary to get the public to allow him to launch a war.
They had no objections to whatever economic activities Southerners wanted to engage in.
Not the average Joe citizen Northerner. They knew little of the larger economics, but the wealthy and powerful industrialists and money men were acutely aware of the economic conditions in the country, and the existing system funneled 200-230 million dollars of Southern produced trade through the pockets of New Yorkers and Washington DC officials.
You see, the powerful people in the North did have objections to the South removing the control of their trade from the existing power structure.
They were okay with slavery, and this is why the Corwin amendment was offered. They absolutely would not tolerate the South trading directly with Europe, and bypassing their ports, their shipping, their banking, their insurances, and to make matters worse, importing and distributing European goods to markets these same Northern industrialists already served in the Mid West and border states.
The South managing it's own money affairs represented a huge financial threat to the existing Northern money power structure, and this is what people nowadays, and what people back then didn't understand.
You can sign a contract with all kinds of reservations, objections and provisos, but if you don't write them into the document they aren't going to be recognized by the other parties to the contract.
They knew little of the larger economics, but the wealthy and powerful industrialists and money men were acutely aware of the economic conditions in the country, and the existing system funneled 200-230 million dollars of Southern produced trade through the pockets of New Yorkers and Washington DC officials.
Which is why they didn't want a war. They didn't want to upset prevailing trade patterns.
If those patterns were disrupted what makes you think the new commercial middlemen would be more efficient and more beneficial to the slave owners than the old ones were?
And was Washington's cut really more than Richmond's would be?
The South managing it's own money affairs represented a huge financial threat ...
... to themselves
The slaver democrats were a flaming disaster
We all know that.
The slavers were living on borrowed time. They were just one pitchfork away from being destroyed by the people they were enslaving.
They had NO lawfully earned money.
War levied against the United States by citizens of the republic, under the pretended authority of the new state government of North Carolina, or of the so-called Confederate government, was treason against the United States.