Was "secession", the cause for the Civil War, actually a state's right at the time?

Question

I'm just interested in hearing legal and constitutional opinions. Back when we were building the nation, the people in the territories petitioned for statehood and were accepted or rejected by the national government. But is it a one way street? Once you join the club, you can't resign?

And.. does secession -- basically a passive, non-aggressive act -- consitute "rebellion"?

Answer 1

Well, there is some background as to why some states seceded.

Mississippi said, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." (1)

Of course, Lincoln said in his first inaugural, "I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that ``I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.'' Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them."

Regarding the war, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." (3)

Did states have the right to secede?

Hard to say absolutely yes or no. There is some excellent discussion of the question (4) linked below. The question at the time was whether the states had the explicit right to secede (not so much) or whether the U.S. Government had the explicit authority to wage war against them (also not so much).

Both sides could only justify their actions not under the banner of 'constitutionality', but under the banner of 'non-unconstitutionality'.

Since the government is supposed to be bound by the Constitution, then the United States government should be the party that can claim constitutional authority when it explicitly exists. Not when 'nobody said we couldn't'. All rights should be assumed to be natural unless specified otherwise under contract with the states and citizens.

However, once the CSA became a separate entity, they were no longer citizens. Though Lincoln could be said to have started the war for federalism more than to end slavery, I can not fault the results. Slavery was simply unacceptable and all of our states are better for it having been abolished.

I am all about liberty, but I draw the line at certain things. Murder, rape, slavery...such are not natural rights because they infringe upon the rights of others.

Answer 2

That is what the war was fought over and since the North won there is no right to secede. If the South had won the North would have either passed a non-secession law (for its remaining states) or allowed other states to secede if they chose.

Answer 3

I think since each individual state either applied for and accepted statehood or, for the original thirteen, ratified the Constitution, it was not legal for them to secede. Of course they either saw it differently or weren't concerned with legality.

Answer 4

I think it was an ambiguous issue before the Civil War and rendered moot after it. But a clarifying constitutional amendment after the war might have been useful, but it never happened.

Answer 5

It really wasn't explicated one way or the other. Nothing in the Constitutio says "once you've joined, you're in it forever."

Answer 6

Yes.