Now, I don't know what you might mean by the term "secession," but I know what the southern politicians trying to protect slavery meant. They intended to divest the government of the United States of its powers in the southern states. They really meant that.
The constitution does not provide for any right of "secession." (They just made the whole thing up.) The only constitutional way to divest the powers of the government of the United States is to amend the constitution pursuant to Article V. The southern states did not wish to take that route and they didn't even want to litigate the legitimacy of their position. Instead, they just told the government of the United States to take a hike. They didn't care about the wishes or desires of the people of the United States, or the governments of the other states, or the government of the United States.
At the time, the southern politicians involved in all of this were desperate. They genuinely believed that the preservation of slavery was vital to the preservation of the southern culture. So they took a gamble. And they lost. And now we know that the preservation of slavery was not vital to the preservation of southern culture.
LOL!! I really wish some of you northern supporters would bother looking into your own history before you make statements like that. It is not only provided by the Constitution under the 10th but at the same time was considered as a viable solution on more than one occasion by not only northern politicians but Presidents as well
And where, specifically, does it grant the federal government the power to prevent a State from formally withdrawing (‘seceding’) from the union?
They intended to divest the government of the United States of its powers in the southern states. They really meant that.
Yes, they did. When the ratifying States formally withdrew (‘seceded’) from the union formed under the Articles of Confederation, “they intended to divest the [existing] government of the United States of its powers” within their States.
The constitution does not provide for any right of "secession." (They just made the whole thing up.)
On the contrary, in the words of Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas (some of the folks here just love court opinions ;>):
“(W)here the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people [of the States].”
The Constitution is “silent” with regard to the formal withdrawal of member States. It therefore “raises no bar to” such action. Please read the Tenth Amendment – you can find it online.
The only constitutional way to divest the powers of the government of the United States is to amend the constitution pursuant to Article V.
The formal withdrawal (‘secession’) of the Southern States from the union did not constitute a divestiture of powers – it was an exercise of a power reserved by the Constitution itself to “the States respectively, or” their people.
The southern states did not wish to take that route and they didn't even want to litigate the legitimacy of their position. Instead, they just told the government of the United States to take a hike. They didn't care about the wishes or desires of the people of the United States, or the governments of the other states, or the government of the United States.
Just as the ratifying States told the “government of the United States [formed under the Articles of Confederation] to take a hike.” You may wish to refer to the Federalist Papers: James Madison observed that the States would ratify – or not ratify – the new Constitution in a manner completely independent of “the wishes or desires of the people of the United States, or the governments of the other states, or the government of the United States.” The Southern States withdrew from the constitutional union in precisely the same manner in which they had entered it.
At the time, the southern politicians involved in all of this were desperate. They genuinely believed that the preservation of slavery was vital to the preservation of the southern culture. So they took a gamble. And they lost. And now we know that the preservation of slavery was not vital to the preservation of southern culture.
Motivation is in effect irrelevant to the issue of the constitutionality of secession. Without a constitutional prohibition of secession, the people of the Southern States could have seceded just so they could wear their underwear on the outside – and it would have been legal.
;>)