Succession in the Constitution

This is my first post! Being an American, I have always had an interest in the Civil War. I am thinking about a POD where the Framers decide to have an article in the Constitution about how a state could legally withdraw from the Union. Perhaps have an ardent anti-Federalist like Patrick Henry or someone of his ilk promise to only support the Constitution if it contained such a provision. If any of you have an idea of who could have conceivably done this, please let me know. The 10th Amendment (now all but ignored nowadays, unfortunately) seems to be in the spirit of allowing for broad state sovereignty, which may implicitly indicate that they have the right of succession though I'm by no means certain about that.

If such a provision were in the Constitution, what would it most likely stipulate? Given that Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence that separation should not occur for "light and transient" causes, there should be a tough requirement for succession. I am thinking a 3/4th majority vote in the Legislature and a governor's signature. Maybe even a statewide plebiscite though I don't think they thought about direct democracy much back then, and when they did they remembered Athens which was a ultimately a failed experiment.

The next question of course is how such a provision would change subsequent history. This brings us back to the Civil War. If I had to venture a guess I think such a "War between the States" might have happened anyway though it would be harder for what's left of the United States to prosecute in the beginning. I mean if South Carolina, N.C., etc. went through the legal channels prescribed in the Constitution, it would be tough for Lincoln to start a war though not impossible.

Or would the South have seceded sooner than the election of Lincoln in 1860? What do you guys think? I'd like to contruct a story with a TL for this scenario but want to work out the possibilities first before I commit to anything. :)

Edit: The title should read "secession" not "succession," the U.S. does not have a king, lol.
 
First of all, welcome to the board!

Your idea is a very interesting one. I would suspect we need a POD where the Federalists have much less support, though offhand I cannot think of a good one. A tenth amendment reading something along the lines of "All states entered lawfully into the Union are granted by this Constitution the right to secede from said Union at any time." I agree a 3/4th legislative majority in both houses and the governor's signature should be necesssary.

I wonder if South Carolina and/or some other states of the deep south might try to draw earlier once balancing slave and free states becomes an issue.
 
Welcome to the board!

I think that anti-federalists might have a problem with a set of prerequisites for succession of a state. Maybe a simple statement that a state's inclusion in the union is voluntary, by the consent of the governed, or something.
 
The Articles of Confederation had, as I understand it, a line declaring it to be an perpetual union or some such.

I really doubt that the Constitution as created would have had an escape clause - that'd be like a line in a marriage ceremony that explicitly laid out grounds for divorce.

Personally, I think the Constitution is supposed to grant rights - not take them away, so that secession is perfectly constitutional. OTOH, the US Supreme Court disagrees with me. OT3H, I think there's a LOT of very ... strange rulings the court has made (I'm pro-choice, but don't think the abortion is a constitutional right, for instance).
 
The Articles of Confederation had, as I understand it, a line declaring it to be an perpetual union or some such.

I really doubt that the Constitution as created would have had an escape clause - that'd be like a line in a marriage ceremony that explicitly laid out grounds for divorce.

Personally, I think the Constitution is supposed to grant rights - not take them away, so that secession is perfectly constitutional. OTOH, the US Supreme Court disagrees with me. OT3H, I think there's a LOT of very ... strange rulings the court has made (I'm pro-choice, but don't think the abortion is a constitutional right, for instance).

I don't know. Jefferson not to long ago wrote a document outlining the general principles involved with one country separating itself from another so perhaps it could be on peoples minds riven the federalist antifederalist controversy. If not it would make for an interesting PoD.

Your last point is fascinating. Is secession constitutional? Powers not grant to the federal gov are left to the states or to the people according to the tenth amendment I believe. So I think you might be right. But then again I use common sense to decide matters of constitutional law. The Supreme Court does all sorts of weird things with the Constitution.

On the other hand secession is not like other rights like freedom of thought or movement so it's not a cut and dry issue. I think an amendment would be needed to clarify the issue.
 
A secession clause in the constitution, wouldn't make it into the final draft if you ask me. Personally I am against it even if there is a legal way to do it. It just feels wrong no matter what way I look at it.
As for the supreme court, I leave you with the ruling by Chief Justice Salmon Chase:
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

 
It'd be tough for a Constitutional clause to allow secession, and I don't really know enough about the period to give a good POD. But I've thought about a similar scenario before--what if secession had occurred during a President that would have allowed, thus setting a precedent? Were this to happen, and be tolerated, then I think that there's a good chance that the USA could break off into smaller, constituent Republics by region, like the Confederacy, and New England.
 
Some in New England did threaten to secede over "James Madison's War" or the War of 1812 as it is better known. It wasn't very serious and I don't think it would have been even if such a clause were in the Constitution. Given the Salmon Chase quote I wonder what would have happened if the Constitution expressly forbade secession or if there was some political fight over the issue in 1789. If the issue were debated maybe some consensus or compromise could have been reached that would have altered things in 1860. Just letting the southerners go would also be an interesting TL.
 
Ratification

You do not need a big butterfly to get the Constitution thoroughly rewritten.

The Articles of Confederation were perpetual, but they also could not be amended without unanimous consent. And Rhode Island held out against ratification for a long time. When Rhode Island had not ratified Constitution, were the other 12 bound to Articles in respect to Rhode Island, and how did they go about discharging their Articles obligations towards Rhode Island while using Constitution among themselves?

OTL, 3 major States ratified Constitution by narrow margins. Massachusetts, Virginia, New York.

Get one of the 3 to reject Constitution instead (by narrow margins). How would the Constitution be changed?
 
All I think you'd need to do for this would be to have a TL in the very earliest days of the union (I'm talking about during the ARW, and the few years immediately following it) where the states proved bad at co-operation, resulting in the various states - especially the smaller ones which were prone to being trampled on by the interests of the more powerful and dominant states - feeling reluctant to stay committed to the union. This doesn't have to mean a Big Bad Government oppressing the states, just a serious of blunders and states sending poor negotiators to handle the early Constitution talks etc, resulting in the states partially alienating or mistrusting each other. You'd also need to find a way to reinforce the idea that the states had seceded under the banner of rights for the common man (not too hard), and that the logical extension to this was the right for any state to decide its future without being imposed upon by the federal government (a bit harder). But basically, if there are enough states basically entering into the union on a "we need to stick together, but we're not sure we're happy about this" ticket, you should be able to add a secession clause to the Constitution. This would probably be particularly helped if a couple of states actually dropped out of the union during the Constitution talks or before, citing that they weren't happy with the way talks were going, as it would make all the other states start looking over their shoulders, wondering if they should think about doing the same when the going gets tough.
 
I'm not a great expert on early American politics, but I'm aware that the Federalists were led by Alexander Hamilton, who had been Secretary of the Treasury during the Revolutionary War. It was his gravitas which gave the Federalists political clout. To remove the Federalists would entail removing Hamilton. So, either have him get shot by Burr earlier or do something to him.

Problem is, as I see it, Hamilton was crucial to the success of the Revolution. He handled all of the money and it was he who cajoled the wealthy into donating to the cause. Without him, the revolution would be bankrupt and easily crushed. Furthermore, without the Federalists then the New England businessmen who were their core voters would have no incentive to stay in the union. The states had run up enormous debts during the Revolution and it was Hamilton who promised to repay them, thus making businessmen America's greatest patriots :).

So without the Federalists or Hamilton America as we know it is virtually impossible. All this is, of course, speaking as a Brit so I stand ready to be slaughtered.
 
I'm not a great expert on early American politics, but I'm aware that the Federalists were led by Alexander Hamilton, who had been Secretary of the Treasury during the Revolutionary War. It was his gravitas which gave the Federalists political clout. To remove the Federalists would entail removing Hamilton. So, either have him get shot by Burr earlier or do something to him.

Problem is, as I see it, Hamilton was crucial to the success of the Revolution. He handled all of the money and it was he who cajoled the wealthy into donating to the cause. Without him, the revolution would be bankrupt and easily crushed. Furthermore, without the Federalists then the New England businessmen who were their core voters would have no incentive to stay in the union. The states had run up enormous debts during the Revolution and it was Hamilton who promised to repay them, thus making businessmen America's greatest patriots :).

So without the Federalists or Hamilton America as we know it is virtually impossible. All this is, of course, speaking as a Brit so I stand ready to be slaughtered.

Leave Hamilton as he was, but make his opponents, Anti-Federalists, a bit more successful.

Massachusetts OTL ratified Constitution by 187 votes against 168 as 6th state on 6th of February, 1788. Virginia was 10th, 89 against 79, on 25th of June, 1788. New York was 11th, 30 votes against 27, on 26th of July, 1788.

Swing just 2 votes to Anti-Federalists, and New York rejects, 29 against 28. What shall then be done about Constitution?
 
Swing just 2 votes to Anti-Federalists, and New York rejects, 29 against 28. What shall then be done about Constitution?


Having already received ten ratifications, it is in effect. Having NY splitting off New England from the rest would be annoying, but no worse than having NC splitting off SC and GA.

NYC would be horrified at being cut off from its hinterland, and seeing all its trade going to Boston, Baltimore etc, so expect NY to split in two at some point, with NYC going into the Union separately. That leaves Upstate NY, and maybe VT, outside the Union for a time, but said Union can probably live with that.
 
Top