The Constitution and secession

If, somehow (barring the whole "oh god we need a stronger government" thing that went on after the Articles of Confederation) the Constitution legalized secession (a minor POD that wouldn't surface again for decades, except possibly in South Carolina (seriously, why was South Carolina always threatening to secede?) where the Crisis of Nullification occurred) then the Union would lose the "You can't secede, South! You signed this Constitution" attitude they had at the beginning of the civil war - though they'll likely just find another reason to fight. Of course, there's always the chance we'll see a CSA.
 
Does anyone know an online copy, probably via Google, etc., of any textbooks on American Law printed circa 1850 or earlier? That would be a better determinate of what the thought of the time would be.
 
That, simply would not have happened.




No, they did not. It's not as if they had a crystal ball and foresaw the Civil War, but said, "ah, let our great-grandchildren slaughter each other if they must. We will not deal with the issue".




Maybe, perhaps, or not. But that's irrelevant to the discussion and decisions made in 1787.

I strongly disagree with about all you said. Why wouldn't "that" simply happen?

I think, even without a crystal ball people as well-trained and intellegent as the founders should have been able see something like it.

I said, I think that a lot of intellegent well informed people in 1787 would not have been all that suprised by what happened.
 
Does anyone know an online copy, probably via Google, etc., of any textbooks on American Law printed circa 1850 or earlier? That would be a better determinate of what the thought of the time would be.

David, from what I've seen about the secession crisis of 1849-1851 there was never a consensus. But if you were to look at the talk of secession that arose during the War of 1812 (Hartford Convention) and the Nullification Crisis, the nation as a whole had a very dismal view of secession.

After the Mexican-American War there was a strong wave of nationalist patriotism. The secession crisis that arose caught many be surprise, but by and large everyone but the nascent fire-breather movement agreed that secession represented a failure of America's great experiment in republicanism. Following the Compromise of 1850 the there was a brief respite that only lasted until the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Remember though that from 1854 all the way till 1860 the South won nearly all of the political confrontations. Even so there was very little talk of secession in the North. This seemed to be because of three primary reasons; economic growth and western settlement diverted Northern attention, a true sense of nationalism that elevated the idea of Union to a higher cause had arisen, and the realization due to demographic changes that the North would eventually overtake the South so as to control the national government.

As others have said directly or indirectly allowing secession was untenable. To be effective as a way of addressing grievances (either real or perceived) states need the power, as supposedly sovereign entities, to unilaterally secede. Yet this totally undermines the very idea of a national government and creates a situation no better than the Articles of Confederation. On the other hand if secession is allowed only with the permission of the other states in a manner similar to the amendment process than each state remains at the mercy of the majority and still lacks sovereignty. The Founders and generations after found it easier to ignore the situation.

When one looks at the Civil War preservation of the Union was the primary reason that the average Northern soldier fought (this is not to be mistaken for the cause of the war which was beyond a doubt, slavery). Very few men from Northern states fought for the CSA while thousands upon thousands of Southerners fought in the Union armies. Outside of the primary cotton and tobacco regions the people were very divided over secession. The idea of "perpetual union" remained a very strong concept even within the minds of those living in the seceding states.

Benjamin
 
David, from what I've seen about the secession crisis of 1849-1851 there was never a consensus. But if you were to look at the talk of secession that arose during the War of 1812 (Hartford Convention) and the Nullification Crisis, the nation as a whole had a very dismal view of secession.

Benjamin

I just noticed that I wasn't clear about which textbooks - not history books but law books, even better constitutional law, that the average lawyer would read and consult, either as student or consultation. What were the legal minds of the Republic considering. Where can we consult primary documents?
 
Were said delegate to propose that a clause explicitly permitting secession be included, the response would be loud and sharp, as they were, after all, seeking to build a more perfect and perpetual (meaning on-going and long-lasting) Union. Were said delegate to propose that a clause explicitly prohibiting secession be included, the response would be cold and firm, as those present remembered the the revolution against Britain 1st hand and would be loathe to surrender the right to withdraw from the Union if its government came to be regarded by the people as unjust and tyrannical.

Actually, "perpetual" can mean "ongoing and long-lasting," or it can mean "without a designated ending-point."

But I agree with your assessment. The attitude of the drafters of the Constitution was that of people entering into a marriage -- "oh, this is going to last forever!" They'd see a secession clause the same way some couples view the idea of a "pre-nup." But they did likely know that there may be a point where a state decides to end it's involvement in the Union, and thus wouldn't care for a prohibition against leaving.

Banning a state from leaving would kind of be contrary to the whole "liberty" thing most of the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention were running on, anyways.
 
I just noticed that I wasn't clear about which textbooks - not history books but law books, even better constitutional law, that the average lawyer would read and consult, either as student or consultation. What were the legal minds of the Republic considering. Where can we consult primary documents?

Good question. But I'm still a bit doubtful that the issue was really addressed. Their seemed to be a bit of the, "Put your hands over your ears and scream...La, la, la, I can't here you," when it came to talks of secession. Also its very possible that different state bars would have different views on the subject matter. Perhaps some legal briefs or judge's opinions might broach the subject.

Benjamin
 
Actually, "perpetual" can mean "ongoing and long-lasting," or it can mean "without a designated ending-point."

But I agree with your assessment. The attitude of the drafters of the Constitution was that of people entering into a marriage -- "oh, this is going to last forever!" They'd see a secession clause the same way some couples view the idea of a "pre-nup." But they did likely know that there may be a point where a state decides to end it's involvement in the Union, and thus wouldn't care for a prohibition against leaving.

Banning a state from leaving would kind of be contrary to the whole "liberty" thing most of the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention were running on, anyways.


And as AJP Taylor liked to say, when people look to the future, they mostly see the past. America's big problem in 1787 was to maintain her independence from Britain (which had taken an eight-year war to win) and this necessitated the states hanging together if they didn't want ro hang separately. The whole point of that Convention was to produce a document which all the states would be reasonably happy with, which of necessity meant avoiding the controversial.
 
Actually, "perpetual" can mean "ongoing and long-lasting," or it can mean "without a designated ending-point."

But I agree with your assessment. The attitude of the drafters of the Constitution was that of people entering into a marriage -- "oh, this is going to last forever!" They'd see a secession clause the same way some couples view the idea of a "pre-nup." But they did likely know that there may be a point where a state decides to end it's involvement in the Union, and thus wouldn't care for a prohibition against leaving.

Banning a state from leaving would kind of be contrary to the whole "liberty" thing most of the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention were running on, anyways.

I can't recall immediately where I read it, but the use of 'perpetual' was frequent peace treaties thru out the 17th and 18th century, and everybody understood that 'perpetual' just meant until the next war broke out. It was a diplomatic phrase that had little weight behind it.

Besides wasn't the 'perpetual' union of the Articles of Confederation broken by secession from it to the government of the Constitution? One shouldn't cherry pick phrases from documents.
 
Top