Did you know the South had a right to secede??

Question

It was written in the Constitution that states could leave the Union if they wanted. So the North was violating the Constitution when they refused to let the South leave!!!
Old times here are NOT forgotten...

Answer 1

Old times here may not be forgotten - but some times they get made up, eh?

It was not written in the Constitution that states could secede. Rather, the Declaration of Independence is a statement of the rights of succession - i.e., that there is a basic right of the people to alter or abolish their government. But that is not a Constitutional argument.

At best, the argument can be made that the Constitution did not explicitly prevent a state from seceding nor delegate to the federal government the right to prevent such a succession.

Further, a lot of states reserved the right in their acts of ratification to leave the union, and the Constitution did not explicitly subsume those acts.

Note to C_Bar - Article 10 says a state cannot join a Confederation. True. But once a state secedes and is no longer part of the U.S., it would no longer be bound by any article of the U.S. Constitution.

Note that the South did not secede. Rather, the southern states seceded individually and then, sequentially, joined the Confederacy.

It is still a poorly worded and inaccurate question aiming for sensationalism. But succession, at the time, was not explicitly disallowed by the Constitution - and an argument was made then, and could be made now that it was within a state's rights to leave the Union.

Answer 2

The Constitution does not contain any citation allowing secession or leaving the Union. While the Constitution does not specifically state that it is perpetual, it was ratified by the Congressional representatives under the Articles of Confederation which DID state that it was perpetual.

The Constitution certainly does not allow a state to secede or to nullify federal directives on a whim. Nothing in our current form of government requires unanimous agreement, even the creation of our current Constitution only required 9 out of 13 original states to vote in favor for it to become binding on all 13 plus any additonal states to join the Union.

As a trick to give themselves legitimacy, the Confederate Constitution specifically stated that states entering the Confederacy COULD NOT secede, trying to state that the US Constitution was poorly written.

Answer 3

Nowhere does the constitution provide a mechanism to dissolve the union. The bond is perpetual and unbreakable. Good luck finding one.

And by the way, I'm extremely tired of uninformed people telling me that Texas still has the right to secede simply because it was once an independent nation. I'm a native Texan. I know my state's history.

The Supreme Court has ruled definitevely on this issue in Texas v. White (1869). NO STATE ever had, nor does have, the right to secede from the Union.

Answer 4

I'm a mexican, so I don't know squat about any Constitution whatsoever, but I can tell this:

1. How can any slavery state have a right to succeed? With all the human rights thing being pointed at Cuba and Castro, do you think slavery would be considered right? That is unless, your new country agrees with Castro's methods. I didn't think so.

2. Of course I can't prove it, but no war has been entirely about ideals of beliefs. Everything is about economics, resources, political strategy. So even if there were no human rights to consider whatsoever, it would not be simply because "they were right". No God anointment, no destiny.

3.You say, "a right to succeed". Tell me who is right about this then: a state created rather by force, by invasion, after a historically documented prosecution and extermination that forced their individuals to scatter all over the world, or the massacre and terror justified by religious beliefs, and the constant threat to end that aforementioned state by force, all taking place in a very hush-hush economic war to control oil? Pick a side and go explain your point of view to arabs and israelis.

Right to succeed my foot.

Answer 5

I had always thought that was so but not sure. One of the main points back then was that each state had a right to govern itself, but as time passes and laws change, the federal gov. has slowly grown and taken more and more control and will continue to do so until we will be completely controlled. I believe the whole idea when the constitution was written was to protect us from another gov. with complete control. The Fed. Gov. wants to have all the power and when people ask for help ( handouts ) the Fed. Gov. likes it because then we depend on them on not being independent.

And for all you scholars, out there the constitution back then has been ammended so much that it doesn't mean the same thing now. Our forefathers were for state rights.

I'm from S.C. and damn proud of it. I would fight for my state before I would fight for the Fed. Gov., but would be proud to fight for either one.

Answer 6

Really?
I took American History in college 2x and didn't ever learn that.
I just think that the North wanted the South to stay to preserve the Union not to be mean or anything.

Answer 7

I notice you quote the Constitution. And cite the provision.

Or could you be wrong:

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

You might want to look at Article 1, Section 10: "no state shall enter into any . . . confederation."

Answer 8

Let's face it - on land the north was denying what it had asserted in 1776, and at sea it was asserting what it had denied in 1812. LOL

Answer 9

The doctrine of secession is anarchy. If a minority decides it can break away, simply because it has not had its way, then law and order cease to exist.

Answer 10

Ummmmmm......

I have read the US Constitution a bunch of times and sure don't know how you got the idea that there is a right to secede there. Could you give article and section number, please? I am open to learning something.

Thank you