Secession and the start of the Civil War
So why is it that states are not allowed to secede from the Union?
I'm reading Team of Rivals about Lincoln's candidacy and Presidency. When he took office, seven states had already seceded, so Lincoln tried to calm the situation in his inaugural address by stating that he did not believe the Union could be broken, and that his Administration recognized slavery where it existed.
Lincoln:
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.
I wasn't initially persuaded by the argument of obvious perpetuity. This is not a nation divided into provinces; it is a union of states [1]. It is a union of entities, and thus, logically, there is the potential for the union to be dissolved.
The answer, as Lincoln indicated but I missed, is in the Articles of Confederation, which were explicitly titled "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", and in Article 13 stipulates that "the Union shall be perpetual".
That same Article XIII states that the power to amend the Articles of Confederation is reserved to the Congress; this suggests that just as Congress has admitted new states to the Union, it could vote to allow states to depart.
That raises a different question: is there a reasonable argument that Lincoln and the Congress should have let the slavery states go their own way? What was the basis for denying them their secession?
The call on that question wasn't about slavery, or abolition thereof. Lincoln was initially willing to let the South retain slavery where it already existed; he didn't go to war to force abolition. However, he had pledged to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, and to defend federal property everywhere. Given that Congress wasn't going to ratify the secession, Lincoln responded to the attack on federally held Fort Sumter.
But back up a minute: the South seceded over threats to slavery. The North had just elected Lincoln, who was willing to let slavery continue where it already existed [2], suggesting that a majority of Northern voters did not see abolition as immediately imperative. The issue was known to be deeply divisive and problematic for the Union--it had been in the foreground of national politics continually for over a decade [3]. What am I trying to say? That perhaps the North should have let the South go? At most, I might say that the decision to fight doesn't appear as obvious to me as it seems to have been to Lincoln.
Every contentious dispute can't lead to secession. So if there were to be a secession clause in the Constitution, what should be the threshold? If both sides are willing to go to war to defend their position, would that qualify?
[1] Oddly, states have been allowed to split, in a sense letting blocks of counties secede, as when West Virginia seceded from Virginia under fairly iffy circumstances.
[2] Lincoln wasn't pro-slavery, but he also didn't walk into this with the ambition to become the Great Emancipator. He strongly believed in States' Rights and saw no provision in the Constitution to warrant interference. He opposed the spread of slavery in newly formed states.
[3] Certainly since the mid-1840s, and arguably back to the Compromise of 1820, though I get the impression there was a lull in between the two.
I'm reading Team of Rivals about Lincoln's candidacy and Presidency. When he took office, seven states had already seceded, so Lincoln tried to calm the situation in his inaugural address by stating that he did not believe the Union could be broken, and that his Administration recognized slavery where it existed.
Lincoln:
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.
I wasn't initially persuaded by the argument of obvious perpetuity. This is not a nation divided into provinces; it is a union of states [1]. It is a union of entities, and thus, logically, there is the potential for the union to be dissolved.
The answer, as Lincoln indicated but I missed, is in the Articles of Confederation, which were explicitly titled "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", and in Article 13 stipulates that "the Union shall be perpetual".
That same Article XIII states that the power to amend the Articles of Confederation is reserved to the Congress; this suggests that just as Congress has admitted new states to the Union, it could vote to allow states to depart.
That raises a different question: is there a reasonable argument that Lincoln and the Congress should have let the slavery states go their own way? What was the basis for denying them their secession?
The call on that question wasn't about slavery, or abolition thereof. Lincoln was initially willing to let the South retain slavery where it already existed; he didn't go to war to force abolition. However, he had pledged to uphold the Constitution and rule of law, and to defend federal property everywhere. Given that Congress wasn't going to ratify the secession, Lincoln responded to the attack on federally held Fort Sumter.
But back up a minute: the South seceded over threats to slavery. The North had just elected Lincoln, who was willing to let slavery continue where it already existed [2], suggesting that a majority of Northern voters did not see abolition as immediately imperative. The issue was known to be deeply divisive and problematic for the Union--it had been in the foreground of national politics continually for over a decade [3]. What am I trying to say? That perhaps the North should have let the South go? At most, I might say that the decision to fight doesn't appear as obvious to me as it seems to have been to Lincoln.
Every contentious dispute can't lead to secession. So if there were to be a secession clause in the Constitution, what should be the threshold? If both sides are willing to go to war to defend their position, would that qualify?
[1] Oddly, states have been allowed to split, in a sense letting blocks of counties secede, as when West Virginia seceded from Virginia under fairly iffy circumstances.
[2] Lincoln wasn't pro-slavery, but he also didn't walk into this with the ambition to become the Great Emancipator. He strongly believed in States' Rights and saw no provision in the Constitution to warrant interference. He opposed the spread of slavery in newly formed states.
[3] Certainly since the mid-1840s, and arguably back to the Compromise of 1820, though I get the impression there was a lull in between the two.