How can you be "readmitted" to something that you never left?

Question

Lincoln and the people of the North stated that secession was "illegal" and "unconstitutional," and maintained that because of this the Southern states had never left the Union, even though they seceded. People from the North to this day still say that's the case, that secession was illegal and that the Southern states never left the Union. If that's true, then why did the Federal government under Andrew Johnson require each of the Southern states to be "re-admitted" to the Union before they could once again have a representative in Congress and receive federal assistance? Other than the Federal troops being used to occupy the South during Reconstruction, that is.

So why did the South have to be "re-admitted" to something it never left?

Yo, Patrick, I suggest you do YOUR homework and check out my profile. I'm 50 years old and am asking this question because I want the opinions of others, not because I have a homework assignment.

You done being a wiseass now?

Answer 1

This is actually an astute question that I discuss with my students every year. Here is my take:

1. The Constitution did not give ANY states the power to leave the Union. Therefore I believe that they did NOT leave the Union in the sense that they were a separate nation. I use the analogy with my students of a runaway child that gets upset over something at home and leaves. They head to Hollywood and change their name, appearance, and clothing. But if a DNA test were given they would still be related to their parents. They cannot change what "family" they are in.

2. But the term re-admitted is tricky. I do not think this term under Johnson and Reconstruction meant the states were being Re-admitted into the United States. I see it as these states went through a probationary state prior to gaining all of their full rights again. Again referring to the analogy of the runaway child. After they sow their wild oats in Hollywood they finally come to their senses and return home. They may not have their old bedroom, their regular place at the table, or possibly their rights to use the family car. They may have to "prove themselves" prior to regaining their full rights. Therefore they are not being RE-ADMITTED to the family (because they never left it) but they are gradually re-receiving their rights as a member of their family.


Incidentally, I wrote an e-mail to Eric Foner at Columbia University last summer and asked him about this analogy I was using, (since I did not want to be teaching AP U.S. History students incorrect information) and he agreed that my position was accurate and he agreed with it (for what that's worth to you.)

Anyway, that is how I understand the "leaving the Union" issue.

Good question.