From the first legal treatise written after Constitutional Ratification by the man later appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison:
But the seceding states were certainly justified upon that principle; and from the duty which every state is acknowledged to owe to itself, and its own citizens by doing whatsoever may best contribute to advance its own happiness and prosperity; and much more, what may be necessary to the preservation of its existence as a state.30 Nor must we forget that solemn declaration to which every one of the confederate states assented . … that whenever any form of government is destructive of the ends of its institution, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. Consequently whenever the people of any state, or number of states, discovered the inadequacy of the first form of federal government to promote or preserve their independence, happiness, and union, they only exerted that natural right in rejecting it, and adopting another, which all had unanimously assented to, and of which no force or compact can deprive the people of any state, whenever they see the necessity, and possess the power to do it. And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments established by compact should not be changed for light or transient causes; but should a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evince a design in any one of the confederates to usurp a dominion over the rest; or, if those who are entrusted to administer the government, which the confederates have for their mutual convenience established, should manifest a design to invade their sovereignty, and extend their own power beyond the terms of compact, to the detriment of the states respectively, and to reduce them to a state of obedience, and finally to establish themselves in a state of permanent superiority, it then becomes not only the right, but the duty of the states respectively, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, Section XIII
------
[emphasis mine]
The South had every Right to leave the Compact, and the Union had NO right to attack them for it.
Thanks for the research, once again confirming to me that Free Republic represents the pinnacle of cumulative, reasoned, internet thought.
My title intended to allude to the fact that the Founders were the original secessionists. And, I find it curious that many here LOVE them, but HATE the South. I suspect some sophistry is involved in order to reach such an obtuse conclusion in one’s own mind.
Originally, the Confederacy was made up of only 7 states. AR,TN,VA and NC only seceded AFTER Lincoln called for troops and wanted to "put down the rebellion". For those 4 states it wasn't about slavery at all, it was about Federal Usurpation of the states. In the words of the governor of Va.
"In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object -- an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 -- will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South. "
Respectfully,
JOHN LETCHER Gov. Commonwealth of Virginia.
Good research!
Thanks for an interesting post, but it requires some correction and context.
First of all, Tucker was never a Supreme Court justice, but rather a judge in the Virginia district court.
Second, Tucker was not a Founding Father -- did not attend the Constitutional Convention or vote for the Constitution's ratification.
His opinions therefore, are his own and not Original Intent of the Founders.
Third, this work by Tucker was written in 1803 -- 16 years after the Constitution's ratification, and after there had already been years of rumblings about nullification and secession -- the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Kentucky Resolutions, Louisiana Purchase, etc.
Some people who had been Federalists 15 years earlier were by 1803 murmuring about secession.
But even then, most held fast to the Founders' Original Intent, which was that secession had to be for material reasons such as oppression or usurpations, that it should not be "at pleasure", and that it should be with mutual consent of other states.
Indeed, even a careful reading of Tucker's work shows he did not advocate secession "at pleasure", but only when "necessary".
In November 1860, when Deep-South slave-holders first began the process to secede, there was no Federal oppression or usurpation, there was no necessity secede -- there was only one thing: the constitutional election of an anti-slavery Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.
So the Deep-South slave-holders declared their secession "at pleasure", simultaneously committing many acts of rebellion and war before formally declaring war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Before their Declaration of War, no Confederate soldier had been directly killed by any Union force, and a negotiated peace was still possible.
After declaring war, the Confederacy faced only one future: Unconditional Surrender.
And since the seceding states, those who break a contract, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest of the parties to the contract, have shown that they consider the right to do so break a contract whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it they decide to, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties.
Considering the right to unilaterally break a contract unquestionable because you’ve unilaterally broken the contract doesn’t track.. The whole underlined part of your post doesn’t track. Applying the logic to a broader range means that people could unilaterally break the marriage contract if “the occasion may, in their opinion require it.” It means it’s nearly pointless to enter a contract. If there is no right to require a party to a contract to hold to it or penalize them for breaking it, there’s little point to a contract.
“The South had every Right to leave the Compact, and the Union had NO right to attack them for it.”
That’s in dispute. Saying it emphatically doesn’t change anything.