Did the South really secede in 1860-61?

[Schmitz in 1972]

I've been wondering whether or not, according to the United States government, the 11 Southern state governments (plus insurgent government in Kentucky and Missouri) actually seceded from the United States in 1860-61. The easiest argument to make on the issue is "Yes, they were readmitted so logically they needed to have left at some point." This argument has a lot of support. For example, before readmission the states that seceded were denied seats in congress and the right to vote in presidential elections, both of which are guaranteed in the Constitution for states. However, the Constitution also states that for amendments to be ratified they must have the support of 3/4 of the states. As we all know, the southern states were forced to ratify them, sometimes even as a condition for readmission! Using the logic that they had to be US states to ratify the amendments, then one would conclude that they never left the Union! This of course coincides with the belief that Lincoln and many northerners held during most of the war that the south had never really left.

So which is it? Or is it the third option: The Republicans were a bunch of lawless sludge cakes who only considered them states when it was of advantage to them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So which is it? Or is it the third option: The Republicans were a bunch of lawless sludge cakes who only considered them states when it was of advantage to them.

"were"?

[Schmitz in 1972]

So which is it? Or is it the third option: The Republicans were a bunch of lawless sludge cakes who only considered them states when it was of advantage to them.

"were"?

The Republicans certainly consider the 11 former Confederate states US states today, after all they're 18 senators and 153 electoral votes at the moment

[A18]

No, and they shouldn't have had to be readmitted.

[Bugs]

The north was fighting to preserve the union, and so logically wouldn't have accepted that the south had actually seceeded.  The logical response would have been to make readmittance as easy as possible, with no obstacles for them to overcome, since they never really left anyway.  The south, on the other hand, wanted to seceed, and might be expected to resist readmittance, since they didn't want to be part of the union anyway.  Both took the opposite stance, however.  The southern states wanted to rejoin the union quickly, but had to overcome many northern hurdles.  As for the northern response to southern secession, it's difficult to immagine northern politicians saying, "Let's don't be a bunch of lawless sludge cakes.  Let them go." Lincoln would have been impeached, and Hamlin too if he didn't take action.

[J. J.]

No, because no state de deprived of its equal representation in the Senate without its consent.  By withdrawing from the Senate, each state gave the remaining states greater representation without its consent.

[minionofmidas]

No. They had no rights to secede, and nor did they. Nor were they "readmitted", even though that is the common way to refer to the process.

[jimrtex]

I've been wondering whether or not, according to the United States government, the 11 Southern state governments (plus insurgent government in Kentucky and Missouri) actually seceded from the United States in 1860-61.

Among the enumerated powers of Congress (Article I, Section is that to suppress insurrections.   The United States also acts as a guarantor to every State of a republican form of government (Article IV, Section 4).
In addition, the individual houses of Congress have the authority to judge the elections and qualifications of its members.

The "legislatures" and "governors" in the southern part of United States were under the control of insurrectionists, and were not competent to exercise the powers reserved to the States under the Constitution.  This obligation fell upon Congress.   When the citizens in the western part of Virginia were able to organize a government for Virginia (in Wheeling), their actions were recognized as legitimate by Congress, which seated Senators elected by the Virginia legislature and Representatives from the areas where elections could be held.  Congress also recognized that the legislature of Virginia authorized the creation of West Virginia from its territory.   Once West Virginia was admitted to the Union, it was not possible for the government of Virginia to be organized.

In 1864, a citizen of Tennessee was elected Vice President, even though his State was unable to hold elections to choose electors.  If Tennessee had seceded, then his election was invalid.

After the insurrection was suppressed, Congress had to determine whether the conditions existed in each state for it to form a republican form of government, and whether persons who presented themselves to the Congress were indeed qualified to serve.   It was recognition of the reconstituted governments in the Southern states that was recognized by Congress.

[Emsworth]

No. This was the decision of the Supreme Court in Texas v. White. Requiring states to ratify amendments or enact new constitutions to gain "readmission" was unlawful.

[Schmitz in 1972]

Thanks for all the help guys. My question has been answered. I'll add as a postscript that following the war 10 of the 11 states declared their secession ordinances null and void, so the implication would be that, according to the states themselves they now never seceded. The one interesting case is the state that only repealed it's secession ordiance rather than declaring it null and void (the implication being that it HAD in fact seceded). This state is, predictably, South Carolina. It would be interesting to see if the government of SC today still considers themselves to have not been members of the union from 1860-65.

[??????????]

No. This was the decision of the Supreme Court in Texas v. White. Requiring states to ratify amendments or enact new constitutions to gain "readmission" was unlawful.

Texas v White was one of the worst decisions by the supreme court, ever. I can't believe I have finally come around to finding THIS of all threads.

[??????????]

I was reading in depth about that decision on the Wiki. I see that the chief justice at the time was Samuel Chase. Even more of a reason to believe this judgement was total bunk. Isn't in obvious that a pro yankee SCOTUS would agree with the view of the yankee government?

[Emsworth]

I would say that Texas v. White was correctly decided. The notion that states could secede on their own is contrary to the Constitution and to the supremacy clause.

[??????????]

I would say that Texas v. White was correctly decided. The notion that states could secede on their own is contrary to the Constitution and to the supremacy clause.

Ok, I would like to see presented to me evidence in the constitution that supports your opinion.

[Emsworth]

I would say that Texas v. White was correctly decided. The notion that states could secede on their own is contrary to the Constitution and to the supremacy clause.

Ok, I would like to see presented to me evidence in the constitution that supports your opinion.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a state can secede, then it can essentially abrogate the Constitution unilaterally within its borders. The state secession resolution would in effect take precedence over the supremacy clause. Hence, unilateral secession is unconstitutional.

[??????????]

I would say that Texas v. White was correctly decided. The notion that states could secede on their own is contrary to the Constitution and to the supremacy clause.

Ok, I would like to see presented to me evidence in the constitution that supports your opinion.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a state can secede, then it can essentially abrogate the Constitution unilaterally within its borders. The state secession resolution would in effect take precedence over the supremacy clause. Hence, unilateral secession is unconstitutional.

Why should it be if states voluntarily join that they can voluntarily quit if they feel their interests are completely being crushed by the federal government. And where exactly would the 10th Amendment fit in in this picture?

[Emsworth]

Why should it be if states voluntarily join that they can voluntarily quit if they feel their interests are completely being crushed by the federal government.

Well, states can rebel. Remember, the decision of the colonies to declare independence was illegal under British law. Yet, independence was actually obtained. In the same way, the decision of a state to secede can be illegal under the U.S. Constitution. Yet, secession may ultimately occur.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that it fits. Powers that are not prohibited to the states are reserved; however, the argument that the supremacy clause prohibits this power to the states would (if you accept it) make the 10th Amendment moot.

[??????????]

Why should it be if states voluntarily join that they can voluntarily quit if they feel their interests are completely being crushed by the federal government.

Well, states can rebel. Remember, the decision of the colonies to declare independence was illegal under British law. Yet, independence was actually obtained. In the same way, the decision of a state to secede can be illegal under the U.S. Constitution. Yet, secession may ultimately occur.

Yeah, I stand pretty much with you there. If you can win it was right..well if not to bad. In my opinon as it's developed over many years I now feel that the secession movement was probably an overreaction in general. But I still feel that a state has the right to such actions as a last attempt measure of self preservation. But if I had lived at the time I would have supported my states efforts to leave and I can understand why many people felt a strong loyalty to their states, north or south. Things were a lot different back then as people were more community based in thinking. We didn't have a huge transportation network we have today and people actually cared about what happened to their towns in general. When I read about such times I try to think in the mindset of those people instead of using my modern day mindset to judge them and in my opinion that's doing justice to them. But I'm rambling again....

[minionofmidas]

Why should it be if states voluntarily join that they can voluntarily quit if they feel their interests are completely being crushed by the federal government.

Well, states can rebel. Remember, the decision of the colonies to declare independence was illegal under British law. Yet, independence was actually obtained. In the same way, the decision of a state to secede can be illegal under the U.S. Constitution. Yet, secession may ultimately occur.

Yeah, I stand pretty much with you there. If you can win it was right..well if not to bad. In my opinon as it's developed over many years I now feel that the secession movement was probably an overreaction in general. But I still feel that a state has the right to such actions as a last attempt measure of self preservation. But if I had lived at the time I would have supported my states efforts to leave and I can understand why many people felt a strong loyalty to their states, north or south. Things were a lot different back then as people were more community based in thinking. We didn't have a huge transportation network we have today and people actually cared about what happened to their towns in general. When I read about such times I try to think in the mindset of those people instead of using my modern day mindset to judge them and in my opinion that's doing justice to them. But I'm rambling again....

No, actually you're making far more sense then when you're usually talking about the subject.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say states can't secede. Then again, it doesn't say they can either (since, no, that's not what the tenth was ever supposed to mean, though yeah, you might be able to interpret it that way) and it doesn't say so in most other countries' constitutions either. The founding fathers did not hold that a state has the right to secede. The whole checks-and-balances, big states vs small states thingy that still gives you the Senate would be pretty pointless if states could always secede.

[Emsworth]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say states can't secede. Then again, it doesn't say they can either (since, no, that's not what the tenth was ever supposed to mean, though yeah, you might be able to interpret it that way)

Well, the point is that if the Constitution does not prohibit a state from doing something, then the state is able to do it. If we accept your assertion that the Constitution does not say that states can't secede, then, it follows logically that they can secede.

Therefore, if secession is unconstitutional, it must follow that there is something in the Constitution that prohibits secession: and that is the supremacy clause.

[minionofmidas]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say states can't secede. Then again, it doesn't say they can either (since, no, that's not what the tenth was ever supposed to mean, though yeah, you might be able to interpret it that way)

Well, the point is that if the Constitution does not prohibit a state from doing something, then the state is able to do it. If we accept your assertion that the Constitution does not say that states can't secede, then, it follows logically that they can secede.

Therefore, if secession is unconstitutional, it must follow that there is something in the Constitution that prohibits secession: and that is the supremacy clause.

Yeah - mine is more the common sense than the lawyerly argument. I would say that the constitution's text  is not clear on the issue...it isn't entirely clear on a no. of other issues either.

[Emsworth]

Yeah - mine is more the common sense .. argument.

Since when does the Constitution have anything to do with common sense?

[jimrtex]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say states can't secede. Then again, it doesn't say they can either (since, no, that's not what the tenth was ever supposed to mean, though yeah, you might be able to interpret it that way) and it doesn't say so in most other countries' constitutions either. The founding fathers did not hold that a state has the right to secede. The whole checks-and-balances, big states vs small states thingy that still gives you the Senate would be pretty pointless if states could always secede.

The States abrogated the Articles of Confederation by ratifying the Constitution.  If the States can can dissolve one agreement in order to form another, why can't they leave the later agreement as well?

[Emsworth]

The States abrogated the Articles of Confederation by ratifying the Constitution.  If the States can can dissolve one agreement in order to form another, why can't they leave the later agreement as well?

The Constitution was technically illegal under the Articles of Confederation, at least until Rhode Island ratified.

[minionofmidas]

The States abrogated the Articles of Confederation by ratifying the Constitution.  If the States can can dissolve one agreement in order to form another, why can't they leave the later agreement as well?

The Constitution was technically illegal under the Articles of Confederation, at least until Rhode Island ratified.

Ah yeah, ex-post legitimacy due to successful rebellion...