A cartoon from the time of the Virginia Secession vote.
Keep in mind, there were no secret ballots in those days. Everyone knew how you voted.
Constitutional? No. There was nothing in the Constitution about secession.
And those were very irregular elections. Look up the history. Some states held conventions. In others the state legislature made the decision. The way delegates were chosen to the conventions may also have varied.
Some conventions voted down secession before voting it up. Any number of rejections apparently didn't count, but one acceptance changed everything.
One state announced it would hold a convention and didn't, the state legislature doing the seceding. Some states held referendums to ratify the secession. Others didn't.
Georgia historians concluded that there were so many irregularities in the election of delegates that they couldn't conclude who had won.
There were enough charges of fraud and intimidation that unionists were within their rights to criticize the results. And the questions at stake were important enough that they had to do so.
The difference is that in the south - support was overwhelming to leave - whereas Lincoln had just 38 percent support of America. Less, if you count South Carolina.
South Carolina? Do you understand that it wasn't just the African-American majority of the state that wasn't allowed to vote in that election? Even free white property owners didn't vote. The state legislature made the choice.
If you don't show your citizens the courtesy of actually asking what they think about the political choices you make for them, you can't claim that they somehow, without being allowed to vote, implicitly "voted" for the choices you made. We've discussed all that, and any sane, thoughtful person would at least acknowledge and consider the point.
38% of the vote for Lincoln? According to the figures I've seen it was closer to 40%. But the Republicans won a majority in the electoral college fair and square. You are willing to split up the country because of some questionable actions in various states, but you reject the results of a national election?
Also, you only count the elections which go your own way. In a two candidate run-off, Lincoln might very well have won a majority. All he needed to get to 50% was a little over a third of Douglas voters (some Bell voters might also have gone his way).
Or say Lincoln didn't. Say you had 60% of the country on your side, implacably opposed to the Republicans. Was a 40% minority president really that threatening? If the country really backed you with well over a majority what was the problem and why was secession necessary?
“Constitutional? No. There was nothing in the Constitution about secession.”
Government exists by the consent of the governed.
“And those were very irregular elections.”
And that is the basis *for* Lincoln’s authority. Secession on the other had broad and substantive support across the south.
“Any number of rejections apparently didn’t count, but one acceptance changed everything.”
Virginia originally rejected things - but when Lincoln levied Virginian troops to fight against their brothers, Virginia changed their mind. Had Lincoln chose not to levy troops - Virginia would have stayed in the Union, and the Confederacy would not have lasted long. Had Lincoln levied non-Virginian troops - they would have also stayed in the Union, and the war would not have lasted long.
“Georgia historians concluded that there were so many irregularities in the election of delegates that they couldn’t conclude who had won.”
Except for the fact that it wasn’t Lincoln.
“South Carolina? Do you understand that it wasn’t just the African-American majority of the state that wasn’t allowed to vote in that election? Even free white property owners didn’t vote. The state legislature made the choice.”
And that was constitutional at the time. Same with the North.
“If you don’t show your citizens the courtesy of actually asking what they think about the political choices you make for them, you can’t claim that they somehow, without being allowed to vote, implicitly “voted” for the choices you made. We’ve discussed all that, and any sane, thoughtful person would at least acknowledge and consider the point.”
Is 38 percent support for Lincoln a ‘broad and deep mandate from the United States? No.
“You are willing to split up the country because of some questionable actions in various states, but you reject the results of a national election?”
I don’t see how Lincoln was representative of the United States as a whole - when he did not have the support of the majority or a near-majority of the people. Nearly two thirds did not support him.
“In a two candidate run-off, Lincoln might very well have won a majority.”
Well, then Lincoln should have insisted on one. This is pure speculation. .
“Was a 40% minority president really that threatening?”
Was Lincoln inclined to work with the majority or was he inclined to go to war?
“why was secession necessary?”
For the people of the South to govern themselves according to the principles of Liberty.
A cartoon from the time of the Virginia Secession vote.
Keep in mind, there were no secret ballots in those days. Everyone knew how you voted.