WI CONSTITUION allowed Sessession

I wonder if those opposed to slavery might have taken the opportunity to leave the US.

There is a very angry quote I cannot remember by an abolitionist about the Constitution
 
You're thinking of William Lloyd Garrison. Abolitionists in New England would probably be the first to try to take advantage of such an option. But we should remember that the "northern secession" idea was never very popular in the north, even in anti-slavery strongholds.
 
Plus, many of more strident abolitionists were religiously motivated, and opposed to slavery everywhere. Just washing their hands of the matter wouldn't solve the problem that slavery still exists just south of the border.

You'd have better luck splitting the country over the Embargo/War of 1812. The Republic was surprisingly fragile during its first few decades. Jefferson and Madison badly mismanaged foreign policy, and it deeply affected New England. While the OTL Hartford Convention was never actually going to lead to secession, one can imagine a scenario where the movement might have had better success. Alternatively, Jefferson and co. might have been more pro-secessionist during the Adams administration; they certainly laid the groundwork for the later nullificationist movement OTL.
 
Setting up a constitution/union assuming its going to fail would be .... odd. Sort of like including divorce conditions in a marriage contract (as opposed to eg a prenup).

OTOH, since the Constitution is doesnt disallow secession, and since 'what isnt prohibited is allowed' is a general rule in free societies, it should have been easy for the Supreme Court to rule in favour of a State's right to secede.

Being that rara avis, a liberal strict constructionist, I think the otl SC got that one wrong.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I'd have to get out my well-thumbed copy of "The Anti-Federalist Papers" to check, but was there any discussion about this at the time of the ratification debates? Did anyone basically say, "Let's join this thing, since we can always leave later if we don't like it."
 
I'd have to get out my well-thumbed copy of "The Anti-Federalist Papers" to check, but was there any discussion about this at the time of the ratification debates? Did anyone basically say, "Let's join this thing, since we can always leave later if we don't like it."
Virginia sort of did:
Virginian ratification resolution said:
WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.


With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction, that, whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution, ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by a delay, with a hope of obtaining amendments previous to the ratification:
We the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution...
 
Depends, can states re-enter also? I could see the slave states seceding, (though if this butterflies Lincoln there would be no reason to) only to return as they individually abolish slaverynor decide it would be beneficial to be part of America again. military loyalty would be a MAJOR issue.
 
They would never include it explicitly, not with the troubles facing the drafters of the Constitution. Giving people an explicit escape hatch would thwart everything about increasing the strength of the national government.
 
The Articles of Confederation didn't permit secession, but that was what was done upon the ratification of the Constitution by each state. The states that refused or held out were pretty much threatened economically or militarily.

Constitutionally permitted secession would probably entail a series of votes by the legislature of the concerned state. Perhaps a treaty of secession would have to be signed and agreed to by either nation in order to resolve any potential disagreements.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
There are those who argue that, due to the wording of the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution allows for secession since it never specifically says that a state cannot secede.
 
Plus, many of more strident abolitionists were religiously motivated, and opposed to slavery everywhere. Just washing their hands of the matter wouldn't solve the problem that slavery still exists just south of the border.

You'd have better luck splitting the country over the Embargo/War of 1812. The Republic was surprisingly fragile during its first few decades. Jefferson and Madison badly mismanaged foreign policy, and it deeply affected New England. While the OTL Hartford Convention was never actually going to lead to secession, one can imagine a scenario where the movement might have had better success. Alternatively, Jefferson and co. might have been more pro-secessionist during the Adams administration; they certainly laid the groundwork for the later nullificationist movement OTL.

HECK the idea of a northern Secession was floated in the 1790s when de Godoy was funneling money and flattering into the region so Spain wouldn't have to worry about Mississippi.
 
There are those who argue that, due to the wording of the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution allows for secession since it never specifically says that a state cannot secede.
Someone raising exactly this point at the Constitutional Convention might be the P.o.D. we need. The delegates agree, that this is indeed a grey area at best. So, in order to pre-empt states leaving later under this argument, but with too much opposition against an outright ban, a compromise article is drafted that allows it, but with specifies stringent requirements. Say 2/3rd majorities in both houses or the State Parliament and a referendum also requiring a 2/3rd majority.
 
Setting up a constitution/union assuming its going to fail would be .... odd. Sort of like including divorce conditions in a marriage contract (as opposed to eg a prenup).

It's not unheard of, actually. Its called a sunset clause, but yeah writing a sunset clause into the Constitution would be idiotic. The first time the government does something that somebody doesn't like, some state or other is going to try to leave.
 

katchen

Banned
Someone raising exactly this point at the Constitutional Convention might be the P.o.D. we need. The delegates agree, that this is indeed a grey area at best. So, in order to pre-empt states leaving later under this argument, but with too much opposition against an outright ban, a compromise article is drafted that allows it, but with specifies stringent requirements. Say 2/3rd majorities in both houses or the State Parliament and a referendum also requiring a 2/3rd majority.
Isn't that how Australia handles the secession issue?
 
Isn't that how Australia handles the secession issue?

Australia handles the secession issue by ignoring it.

Western Australia voted for secession in 1933, and the rest of the country ignored it. Western Australia took their case to Britain (which still had residual sovereignty at that point), and after pondering the issue for 18 months, the British parliament said that they did not have the power to make Western Australia independent.

So Western Australia is still attached to the rest of the country. :D
 
Top