Replies

Actually each state did not elect delegates to a convention. I would refer you to "The Men of Secession and Civil War 1859-1861" by James L. Abrahamson. South Carolina's secession convention delegates were selected by the legislature. Georgia held an election to select delegates but there is considerable evidence to suggest that the results were fixed. In Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama the delegates available were almost exclusively from the plantation owners. Hardly represetnational. Even then the issue was far from unanimous.

Part of the governments duties is to guarantee each state a republican form of government. Preventing rebellion certainly would be part of that.

While Texas v. White was a post war decision, it decided the legality of the southern actions in 1860-61. The southern belief that they had the right to arbitrary secession was incorrect. I'm not using it as justification for opposing secession in 1860-61, I don't need to. Lincoln's opinion was that southern secession was illegal and he took actions consistent with that position. All Texas v. White did was confirm that his actions were the correct ones and the southern actions were illgal.

Let me offer two quotes from Madison as well:

"One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!

Madison was pointing out the dangers of arbitrary secession. It's obvious that he knew that such arbitrary actions must be opposed by the federal government.

"An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late been palatable anywhere, and nowhere less so than where it is now most contended for..."

Would you agree with this? Do the other states have the right to expel a single state regardless of that state's wishes?

I have Mr. Abrahamson’s book, and don’t see that the South Carolina Convention was appointed by the State legislature. Not saying you’re wrong, I just don’t see it. As for the others, the validity of any election was the State‘s to determine and if the people elected plantation owners, then they were legitimate as delegates because of that election, regardless of their occupation.

Part of the governments duties is to guarantee each state a republican form of government. Preventing rebellion certainly would be part of that.

And preventing the elected State legislature to meet would undoubtedly violate that trust. See Canby’s order to Warren et al. on May 20th, 1865. O.R. Vol. 48, part 2, page 520-1. And instructions from the Secretary of War to Brig. Gen. Nathaniel Banks Sept. 11th, 1861, O.R. vol. 5, pg. 193.

While Madison is obviously troubled by the possibility of secession, the declaration of the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia, in Convention assembled, do not share his trouble. “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes.”

Then in 1861, the same people of Virginia, in Convention assembled, declared, “The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand, seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whenever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the South or slaveholding-States, Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain, That the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in convention, on the twenty-fifth of June, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the general assembly of this State ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignity which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.”

As great a mind as Madison’s was, in those areas in which it opposes the declared will of the people of Virginia as to the rights of those people, Madison was wrong.

Respectfully,

D J White

Would you agree with this? Do the other states have the right to expel a single state regardless of that state's wishes?

Well, in fairness, that’s not what Madison was saying. If all the States but one seceded, then reformed a Union called the Alternative States of America, or some such, they would first have to pass through a national 'state of nature,' if you will. They would have to be completely independent before they reformed a new Union. As far as leaving the one State of the old Union with all of the debts of the Union, I guess that the Federal government (and eventually the sole left-out State) would have to negotiate with the departers to take with them their fair share of the public debt, especially if they were taking their fair share of the public non-moveable assets (something the Confederate States attempted to do, but were never received by Mr. Lincoln). Failing a resolution through negotiation, the left-over State would only have a recourse to the final arbiter between sovereign States when no superior judge exists to determine wrongs and measures of redress: war.

More to the point, if the departers left in peace and settled accounts with remaining State[s], and then changed the name, but kept the republican ideals of the old Union, wouldn’t this be preferable to keeping the old name, but rejecting the original ideals of the old Union, namely that governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness?" Just a thought. I don’t think that the American people ever thought of secession for flippant and transient reasons. It’s only been tried once, with disastrous consequences for those who attempted it. The greater threat to liberty comes from a Federal government which refuses to acknowledge any limits on its power, and is willing to engage in the most violent and anti-republican acts to ensure subordination of its subjects.

Respectfully,

D. J. White