US Civil War Myths and Facts

[Bob Hubbard]

Quote:
After the war Jefferson Davis was imprisoned but was never tried for treason, and for good reason: The federal government knew that it had no constitutional case against secession.
What's your source for saying that's why they didn't prosecute? The federal govt. knew that it had to re-integrate the Southern states into society and that trials would likely be divisive and counterproductive.

You are suggesting that the conquering US Government, would forgive the leader of their enemy in the thought of peace, while at the same time passing an obscene number of laws authorizing the theft, I'm sorry, the "confiscation" of the properties of anyone considered a Confederate, putting puppet govenors in office of the conquered states, forcing them to rewrite their own Constitutions to hard-code a subservient status and imposing massive repayment costs after waging a war of extermination where men, women and children were indiscriminately raped, robbed and slaughtered?

It's telling that after the war David was reelected to Congress but denied his seat after the 14th Amendment was rushed into place. Seems a nation intent on seeing the will of the people would have allowed Democracy to rule. Except when it's inconvenient.

So much for the "American Experiment in Democracy".

Quote:
The fact is, until the end of the war, the idea of a state breaking off and going it's own way, while thought of as a stupid move, was seen as a right.
As indicated above, not so. Some thought it was but the people involved with writing and arguing in favor of the Constitution did not.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Jefferson and James Madison were the authors of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which held that "where powers were assumed by the national government which had not been granted by the states, nullification is the rightful remedy," and that every state has a right to "nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others. . ." Nullification of unconstitutional federal actions was a means of effectively seceding. [/FONT]

(Thomas DiLorenzo)

The fact that no where in the Constitution does it state it was illegal to secede, and the fact that there were numerous opportunities to clarify in the decades prior yet they did not, would indicate it was permitted under the 10th Amendment:

Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[arnisador]

You are suggesting that

...you have no source for your claim, just a conspiracy theory. If CSA authorities weren't prosecuted for a particular reason, that's surely an historical fact that can be cited, right? A statement by the Attorney General explaining why no one was being prosecuted? It's a fact that Jefferson Davis wasn't prosecuted. The rest is just your guess as to why, as the rest of your comments clearly indicate.

As to construing "a means of effectively seceding", that still wouldn't be a means of actually seceding, would it?

The fact that no where in the Constitution does it state it was illegal to secede, and the fact that there were numerous opportunities to clarify in the decades prior yet they did not, would indicate it was permitted under the 10th Amendment

Not nearly as clearly as the Constitution spelling out a means for doing so, no. If you are making up for the absence of positive evidence for your side with weasel-words like "the fact that there were numerous opportunities to clarify in the decades prior yet they did not, would indicate it was permitted" is loose logic of the most self-interested sort. There are any number of things not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution that could have been so prohibited.

Look, you're just making stuff up. You're seeing what you want to see--conspiracies.

As to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the text is available online. They say things like:

That this commonwealth considers the federal Union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeably to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the union of the states, to maintain which it pledges its powers

They then go on to claim a power to ignore certain federal laws and make a clear protest against those laws. There's certainly an implicit threat that the states might take stronger action but no clear statement of an intention or even the right to do so.

There's no explicit right to secede in the Consitution. There's also no explicit right to dance. In seeking a right to secede in the 10th amendment you're in the same boat as those seeking a right to privacy in the 14th amendment...save that the Supreme Court did find thee latter right but not the former.

If the Supreme Court isn't the final arbiter of the Constitution, we're left in a pretty sorry state, with no way to decide what the document does and does not say. It was tried. There's no right to secede. There never was, despite any sabre-rattling by states seeking advantages of various sorts prior to the Civil War.

By the way, I notice that you ignored the substantive arguments I made in the first part of my post in favor of an inflammatory response, as though war atrocities were unique to the Civil War. I take this as an implicit recognition that the facts are not on your side. It's an implicit concession on your part...like the implicit right to secede to you are so attached.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You have ignored numerous factual items I have posted here, and elsewhere. As usual however you read things how you like. I wonder, do you grade your students the same way, seeing what you wish and not what is actually on their paper?

You seem to fill in blanks as you want them to appear. It's ok to create a huge tax burden with a poorly thought out national health plan because it's implied, yet because there's no stated out it's implied its not possible to leave. Great logic there.

I will address your various points as I can.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

...you have no source for your claim, just a conspiracy theory. If CSA authorities weren't prosecuted for a particular reason, that's surely an historical fact that can be cited, right? A statement by the Attorney General explaining why no one was being prosecuted? It's a fact that Jefferson Davis wasn't prosecuted. The rest is just your guess as to why, as the rest of your comments clearly indicate.

As to construing "a means of effectively seceding", that still wouldn't be a means of actually seceding, would it?

Lets see, after the end of hostilities:
- As a condition of readmittance to the Union (which they never left yet did, funny that inconsistency there) the states were forced to rewrite their constitutions.

1.South Carolina Dec. 20, 1860 July 9, 1868
2. Mississippi Jan. 9, 1861 Feb. 23, 1870
3. Florida Jan. 10, 1861 June 25, 1868
4. Alabama Jan. 11, 1861 July 13, 1868
5. Georgia Jan. 19, 1861 July 15, 1870
6. Louisiana Jan. 26, 1861 July 9, 1868
7. Texas March 2, 1861 March 30, 1870
8. Virginia April 17, 1861 Jan. 26, 1870
9. Arkansas May 6, 1861 June 22, 1868
10. North Carolina May 20, 1861 July 4, 1868
11. Tennessee June 8, 1861 July 24, 1866
dates of secession and re-admittance

The Reconstruction Acts

On Mar. 2, 1867, Congress enacted the Reconstruction Act, which, supplemented later by three related acts, divided the South (except Tennessee) into five military districts in which the authority of the army commander was supreme. Johnson continued to oppose congressional policy, and when he insisted on the removal of the radical Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton Stanton, Edwin McMasters, 1814–69, American statesman, b. Steubenville, Ohio. He was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1836 and began to practice law in Cadiz., in defiance of the Tenure of Office Act Tenure of Office Act, in U.S. history, measure passed on Mar. 2, 1867, by Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson ; it forbade the President to remove any federal officeholder appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate without the further, the House impeached him (Feb., 1868). The radicals in the Senate fell one vote short of convicting him (May), but by this time Johnson's program had been effectively scuttled.
Under the terms of the Reconstruction Acts, new state constitutions were written in the South. By Aug., 1868, six states (Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida) had been readmitted to the Union, having ratified the Fourteenth Amendment as required by the first Reconstruction Act. The four remaining unreconstructed states—Virginia, Mississippi, Texas, and Georgia—were readmitted in 1870 after ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Fifteenth Amendment, which guaranteed the black man's right to vote.

Source:http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Readmission+of+states]

Reconstruction Acts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After the end of the Civil War, as part of the on-going process of Reconstruction, the United States Congress passed four statutes known as Reconstruction Acts (March 2, 1867 (39 Cong. Ch. 153; 14 Stat. 428), March 23, 1867 (40 Cong. Ch. 6; 15 Stat. 2), July 19, 1867 (40 Cong. Ch. 30; 15 Stat. 14), March 11, 1868 (ch. 25, 15 Stat. 41)).
The acts' main points included:

• Creation of five military districts in the seceded states not including Tennessee, which had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and was readmitted to the Union
• Requiring congressional approval for new state constitutions (which were required for Confederate states to rejoin the Union)
• Confederate states give voting rights to all men.
• All former Confederate states must ratify the 14th Amendment.

President Andrew Johnson's vetoes of these measures were overridden by Congress

Now, Lincoln & Congress said they had rebelled. The USSC said they Seceded. The view (rebellion vs secession) varied however in what punishments they chose to inflict.


Now, lets look at rape.

An 1862 order by the Union Gen. Benjamin Butler decreeing that any New Orleans woman showing contempt for his occupying troops “shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation” — that is, the city’s outspokenly Confederate belles were to be treated as prostitutes. After President Abraham Lincoln ignored calls to rescind the order and it was applied beyond the city, its geographical reach “ensured that the threat of sexual violence and the fear of rape were common to southern women and central to how they experienced the Civil War.”
Article citation: Feimster, Crystal N. “General Benjamin Butler & the threat of sexual violence during the American Civil War.” Daedalus, Spring 2009.

Hmm....burned my home, raped my women, gave what's left of my property away or kept it for yourself, but! you didn't hang ol Jeff Davis. Why, make me a Yankee by god!

I think not.

Not nearly as clearly as the Constitution spelling out a means for doing so, no. If you are making up for the absence of positive evidence for your side with weasel-words like "the fact that there were numerous opportunities to clarify in the decades prior yet they did not, would indicate it was permitted" is loose logic of the most self-interested sort. There are any number of things not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution that could have been so prohibited.

Look, you're just making stuff up. You're seeing what you want to see--conspiracies.

You mean like how you see it as ok to create a national health care system? Ok then.

As to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the text is available online. They say things like:

They then go on to claim a power to ignore certain federal laws and make a clear protest against those laws. There's certainly an implicit threat that the states might take stronger action but no clear statement of an intention or even the right to do so.

Interesting that the Kentucky legislature in 1802 disagreed with your interpretation and passed a resolution stating as much.

There's no explicit right to secede in the Consitution. There's also no explicit right to dance. In seeking a right to secede in the 10th amendment you're in the same boat as those seeking a right to privacy in the 14th amendment...save that the Supreme Court did find thee latter right but not the former. [/quote]

The fact that a right is NOT listed does not negate it's existence.

If the Supreme Court isn't the final arbiter of the Constitution, we're left in a pretty sorry state, with no way to decide what the document does and does not say. It was tried. There's no right to secede. There never was, despite any sabre-rattling by states seeking advantages of various sorts prior to the Civil War.

So, you're saying that West Virginia is illegal as there wasn't a right to secede?

 

[arnisador]

You have ignored numerous factual items I have posted

You do not understand the distinction between a list of facts and an analysis. You have listed a bunch of quotes from Wikipedia. That isn't an argument.

It's ok to create a huge tax burden with a poorly thought out national health plan because it's implied

We don't agree on any of the facts you state there--huge tax burden, poorly thought out, or merely implied (vice assumed)--so this is a straw man argument.

Now, lets look at rape.

I don't understand what this has to do with an implied right to secede, present since the 1780s and clearly visible to you in the 10th amendment. It's a red herring argument.

Interesting that the Kentucky legislature in 1802 disagreed with your interpretation and passed a resolution stating as much.

It would be helpful if you could point to it.

The fact that a right is NOT listed does not negate it's existence.

But it does require the Supreme Court to find it there if parties disagree. How would you resolve impasses on Constitutional interpretation--and pleas don't posit a fantasyland where the justices are all chosen so as to agree with your principles. Do you have a real-world way to settle these disputes without demanding in advance that everyone think like you do?

So, you're saying that West Virginia is illegal as there wasn't a right to secede?

That was effectively settled by the court in Virginia v. West Virginia in 1870. You could argue it wasn't settled 100% by that case, but no one has made a serious attempt to have it heard again.

 

[arnisador]

You've scurried away from my response to your argument in favor of another polemic against Abraham Lincoln and the Union army. I'd like to see your specific replies to the items below. Otherwise it isn't a discussion--it's just a dumping of blocks of text from Wikipedia.

1. There was no constitutionally prescribed means of seceding, making it difficult to do so and hence making any argument about its legality conjectural and very much open to debate. This is telling, because the framers did foresee the possibility of insurrections and rebellions and put language in the document relating to those situations. How could it be that insurrection and rebellion were explicitly provided for, but not secession? Without such a provision, how could one distinguish between these cases--secession or rebellion?

2. it's been argued that the rejection of the confederation in favor of the current Constitution was precisely a rejection of the loose form of states-rights-heavy govt. the confederation represented (e.g. Akhil Reed Amar in America's Constitution: A Biography). The Constitution is a contract between the States--at the time, equal partners--and like all such agreements may be changed only by consent of all the parties.

3. The Constitution describes itself as for forming "a more Perfect Union". As Texas v. White says, if the previous union was perpetual, and this one was more perfect than that, what are we to make of this? The intentionally and noticeably stronger language in the Constitution has been frequently remarked upon in this regard.

4. The individual states themselves lacked laws indicating how they might decide to secede, and who was authorized to deliver such news to the federal govt.--they used ad hoc methods. It's unclear whether their own methods were internally justified.

5. Many of the founders and other major figures--including James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and James Buchanan--agreed that rebellion was an appropriate option against a govt. that lacked moral authority while explicitly denying a right of secession. They felt that a revolution could be justified but that a legal right of secession did not exist. That's an important difference.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You've scurried away from my response to your argument in favor of another polemic against Abraham Lincoln and the Union army. I'd like to see your specific replies to the items below. Otherwise it isn't a discussion--it's just a dumping of blocks of text from Wikipedia.

1- For the same reason they didn't specify a right to breath. It was seen as obvious.
2- A contract breached by 1 party will nullify the contract. The seceding states saw it that way. The writings of the time are quite clear on that.
3- What is your question? The Constitution was in many ways superior to the AOC. The Confederate Constitution however added some improvements such as line-item-vetos that only recently made it into the US version.
4- Incorrect. Several of the states did specify they had the right, I believe NY and Virginia were 2 of them.
5- Many of the Founders held different opinions. Jefferson's was that the Constitution should always be read based on the time it was written and that it said what it said and nothing more.

 

[arnisador]

1- For the same reason they didn't specify a right to breath. It was seen as obvious.

Then why add in parts about rebellion and secession? Even if the right were obvious, wouldn't a mechanism for exercising it be required?

2- A contract breached by 1 party will nullify the contract.

This couldn't be more wrong. If you don't pay the mortgage, the other party in that contract can still hold you responsible for the money, foreclosing if necessary. This is a major reason why we have courts--to enforce contracts. Secession from this view would have had to go before the Supreme Court as a dispute between states. You are entirely incorrect here.

3- What is your question? The Constitution was in many ways superior to the AOC.

Did it not state that the union of the states was to be made stronger?

4- Incorrect. Several of the states did specify they had the right

What about a legal mechanism for deciding to exercise it and notifying the federal govt.?

5- Many of the Founders held different opinions. Jefferson's was that the Constitution should always be read based on the time it was written and that it said what it said and nothing more.

But if it says what it says and nothing more, and it doesn't say there's a right to secede, then you are now arguing against yourself. Under this view, where can a right to secede come from? An expansive view of the 10th Amendment that makes it a Pandora's box of rights?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You do not understand the distinction between a list of facts and an analysis. You have listed a bunch of quotes from Wikipedia. That isn't an argument.

I have given you both here, and in my numerous prior articles. You reject both.

We don't agree on any of the facts you state there--huge tax burden, poorly thought out, or merely implied (vice assumed)--so this is a straw man argument.

I wasn't aware that we had to agree on facts to have an argument. Obviously only those who agree should argue.

I don't understand what this has to do with an implied right to secede, present since the 1780s and clearly visible to you in the 10th amendment. It's a red herring argument.

You asked for more detail, I provided it. Your inability to understand or accept it does not negate it.

It would be helpful if you could point to it.

I had my date wrong. It was 1799. Found at Yale. Hope that's an ok source to cite.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/kenres.asp Kentucky Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts
RESOLUTIONS IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

THE representatives of the good people of this commonwealth in general assembly convened, having maturely considered the answers of sundry states in the Union, to their resolutions passed at the last session, respecting certain unconstitutional laws of Congress, commonly called the alien and sedition laws, would be faithless indeed to themselves, and to those they represent, were they silently to acquiesce in principles and doctrines attempted to be maintained in all those answers, that of Virginia only excepted. To again enter the field of argument, and attempt more fully or forcibly to expose the unconstitutionality of those obnoxious laws, would, it is apprehended be as unnecessary as unavailing.
We cannot however but lament, that in the discussion of those interesting subjects, by sundry of the legislatures of our sister states, unfounded suggestions, and uncandid insinuations, derogatory of the true character and principles of the good people of this commonwealth, have been substituted in place of fair reasoning and sound argument. Our opinions of those alarming measures of the general government, together with our reasons for those opinions, were detailed with decency and with temper, and submitted to the discussion and judgment of our fellow citizens throughout the Union. Whether the decency and temper have been observed in the answers of most of those states who have denied or attempted to obviate the great truths contained in those resolutions, we have now only to submit to a candid world. Faithful to the true principles of the federal union, unconscious of any designs to disturb the harmony of that Union, and anxious only to escape the fangs of despotism, the good people of this commonwealth are regardless of censure or calumniation.
Least however the silence of this commonwealth should be construed into an acquiescence in the doctrines and principles advanced and attempted to be maintained by the said answers, or least those of our fellow citizens throughout the Union, who so widely differ from us on those important subjects, should be deluded by the expectation, that we shall be deterred from what we conceive our duty; or shrink from the principles contained in those resolutions: therefore.
RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiesecence as highly criminal: That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact:
AND FINALLY, in order that no pretexts or arguments may be drawn from a supposed acquiescence on the part of this commonwealth in the constitutionality of those laws, and be thereby used as precedents for similar future violations of federal compact; this commonwealth does now enter against them, its SOLEMN PROTEST.
Approved December 3rd, 1799.

But it does require the Supreme Court to find it there if parties disagree. How would you resolve impasses on Constitutional interpretation--and pleas don't posit a fantasyland where the justices are all chosen so as to agree with your principles. Do you have a real-world way to settle these disputes without demanding in advance that everyone think like you do?

I'll do as you wish and avoid the FDR idea of packing the courts with favorites then.

The Supreme Court should rule based on the Constitution, not based on party lines, or favoritism. It has not however held to that ideal, as numerous critics have stated since the mid 1800's.
The original idea was that the 3 branches would check each others power, not that the USSC would be the "ultimate constitutional power". It assumed that on it's own.

reference: http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/separation-powers/

That was effectively settled by the court in Virginia v. West Virginia in 1870. You could argue it wasn't settled 100% by that case, but no one has made a serious attempt to have it heard again.

So you are saying that because the court after the fact decided it was ok, that it made it legal when it happened? I believe you are right that it hasn't come up since, but that may, and I speculate, have more to do with cultural differences between the 2 sections than anything else.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Then why add in parts about rebellion and secession? Even if the right were obvious, wouldn't a mechanism for exercising it be required?



This couldn't be more wrong. If you don't pay the mortgage, the other party in that contract can still hold you responsible for the money, foreclosing if necessary. This is a major reason why we have courts--to enforce contracts. Secession from this view would have had to go before the Supreme Court as a dispute between states. You are entirely incorrect here.



Did it not state that the union of the states was to be made stronger?



What about a legal mechanism for deciding to exercise it and notifying the federal govt.?



But if it says what it says and nothing more, and it doesn't say there's a right to secede, then you are now arguing against yourself. Under this view, where can a right to secede come from? An expansive view of the 10th Amendment that makes it a Pandora's box of rights?

Read the 10th. It reserves non stated powers to the states. Therefore the states who had an escape clause could leave. The forced rewrites removed them, which is why California specifically states it can't leave. (Exact time that was added I'm not aware of ATM)

As to the contract view, it is the one I saw listed. Specifics at the moment elude me, but I do believe I referenced them before in more detail.

 

[arnisador]

I wasn't aware that we had to agree on facts to have an argument. Obviously only those who agree should argue.

I've got bad news for you in that regard.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ok, the 3 states who specified an out are Virginia, New York and Rhode Island. Had to look this up.

When New York delegates met on July 26, 1788, their ratification document read, “That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”


On May 29, 1790, the Rhode Island delegates made a similar claim in their ratification document. “That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”


On June 26, 1788, Virginia’s elected delegates met to ratify the Constitution. In their ratification document, they said, “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.”

Source Dr. Walter Williams, George Mason University
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/apr/25/states-have-historical-right-to-secede/


I do not believe that any of the 3 states current constitutions contain escape clauses, or if they do I've been unable to locate anything resembling them.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The Constitution does not forbid the states to secede, nor does it empower Congress to wage war upon a state that secedes.
Therefore, the 10th amendment implicitly authorizes states to secede.

The president does have power to suppress insurrections, but when a state votes to leave the Union in the same orderly manner in which it entered, it's hardly an insurrection.
Lincoln's actions were entirely illegal.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Now, since I am often noted to do so, I can also present a plausible counter that I saw on one of the sites. That the states were not legally able to leave based on

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

The argument being that since there was still money owed on debts, they couldn't leave until they had paid their share.

I recall reading (references not handy at the moment) that Virginia at least had offered to pay it's portion but was rebuffed. Take this with a grain of salt as I don't have references on hand to confirm/deny this.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If secession was illegal, why did President James Buchanan allow 7 states to leave in peace?
- The first 7 states voted to leave in January 1861.
- Lincoln took office in March 1861.
- Lincoln sent a resupply mission to Ft. Sumter in April 1861. The fort being in South Carolina, a seceded state. The resupply was fired upon and retreated, however Lincoln had his excuse "they shot first". The fort was asked repeatedly to surrender peacefully, and a payment was offered but rejected.
- Upon Lincolns call for an army to be raised, additional states then left by vote of their legally elected governments.

One could argue that by firing on the fort, South Carolina started the war. I don't disagree with that argument. It's possible that ships could have been used to blockade the fort and starve them into submission. It's possible that had firing not begun that a peaceful reunification would have worked out within a few more months.

The question still remains, If secession was illegal, why did President James Buchanan allow 7 states to leave in peace?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Since Virginia, New York and Rhode Island had specified escape clauses, and since any power of 1 state is granted to all states equally, they all had escape ability, therefore secession was legal.

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.




Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Court decisions and laws passed -after- the war do not make acts prior illegal.