Amar explains how the Constitution affected state sovereignty: The Republican Party was formed during this decade around the idea that territories should remain free; that is, slavery should not be allowed there. Southerners vowed that the election of a Republican president in 1860 would make secession a certainty. When the Democratic Party disintegrated in 1860 over the issue of expanding slavery, Lincoln was elected the first Republican president. Before the civil war, the country was divided between North and South. Topics discussed included state rights and disagreements over tariffs, but the biggest divide was the issue of slavery, which was legal in the South but had been gradually banned by states north of the Mason-Dixon line. When the United States acquired new territories in the West, bitter debates erupted over whether or not slavery would be allowed in those territories. Southerners feared that it would be only a matter of time before new states without slave owners were added, but no new slave state would cede control of government to abolitionists and the institution of slavery would be banned altogether. Nor did they like the idea that a Northern industrialist could set up factories or any other business in the new territories, but that Southern agricultural slave owners could not move to areas where slavery was forbidden because their slaves would then be free. The town of Rough and Ready, California, said on June 7.
In April 1850, it seceded from the Union as the Great Republic of Rough and Ready, mainly to avoid mining taxes, but voted to join the Union less than three months later, on July 4. [74] Davis` trial, which would have served as a test for the legality of secession, was delayed for four years before finally being dropped. Government officials feared that prosecutors would turn against them. Many political analysts and lawyers believe that threats of secession should not be taken literally. In his view, it was only rhetorical and aimed to draw attention to how political and cultural differences reflected geographical differences. The Supreme Court ruled on this issue in Texas against White, who also prohibits expulsion from a state by the national government if the state in question wishes to remain in the Union. The question is: Does the law allow secession if all parties agree? The eleven states of the CSA, in order of dates of secession (listed in parentheses), were: South Carolina (December 20, 1860), Mississippi (January 9, 1861), Florida (January 10, 1861), Alabama (January 11, 1861), Georgia (January 19, 1861), Louisiana (January 26, 1861), Texas (February 1, 1861), Virginia (April 17, 1861), Arkansas (May 6, 1861), North Carolina (May 20, 1861) and Tennessee (June 8, 1861). Secession was declared by the pro-Confederate governments of Missouri and Kentucky (see Missouri Confederate Government and Kentucky Confederate Government), but did not take effect because it was opposed by their pro-Union governments. To justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be based on the principle that the federal government is merely a voluntary association of states that must be dissolved by each party at will.
[emphasis added] If so, the confederation [here refers to the existing union] is a sandrope that must be penetrated and dissolved by the first negative wave of public opinion in one of the states. In this way, our thirty-three states can dissolve into petty, shocking and hostile republics, each of which leaves the Union without responsibility, whenever sudden excitement might push them down such a path. Through this process, a Union could be completely shattered into fragments in a matter of weeks, costing our ancestors many years of effort, deprivation and blood. [34] According to Article VII of the Constitution, its enforceability results from the ratification of nine states. The document derived its original power from the voluntary act of those sovereign States agreeing to accede to it. With the fifty states asking the central government to leave the Union, the legality of secession is now making headlines in the United States. Can a state legally secede from the Union? Many, including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, suggest no. In a 2006 letter available here, Scalia argued that the issue was not within the realm of legal possibility because 1) the United States would not be involved in litigation over the issue, 2) the „constitutional” basis for secession had been „resolved by the Civil War,” and 3) there was no right to secede, As the oath of allegiance makes clear across the line „one nation, indivisible.” The Supreme Court addressed the issue of secession in Texas v. White declared it unconstitutional in 1869. The case had none of the complications of the Davis case, and it was much easier for the court to approach secession in that context. Still, Nicoletti pointed out that many Americans don`t think Texas v. White had solved the problem completely – or fairly.
It took another generation or two for the issue to disappear from constitutional discourse. What about the original understanding? The debates contain scattered statements on the persistence or ephemerality of the Union. The occasional reference to the ephemeral nature of the Constitution is difficult to interpret. They may have referred to a legal right to revoke ratification. But they could also have referred to an extra-constitutional right of revolution, or the possibility of a new national convention rewriting the constitution, or simply the de facto possibility that the national government could collapse. Similarly, references to the sustainability of the Union could have referred to the practical improbability of withdrawal rather than to a lack of legal power. The public debates do not appear to focus specifically on whether ratification under Article VII was revocable. [28] It seems that Texas still aspires to the independence it once had. It remains to be seen whether their umpteenth attempt at secession will work. „Compliance” was generally perceived by each state as a matter of interpretation. Emerich de Vattel, a recognized authority on international law, wrote at the time: „Treaties contain perfect and reciprocal promises.
If one of the allies fails to live up to its commitments, the other. detach themselves from its promises and. Terminate the contract. [17] Thus, each state could unilaterally „secede” from the Articles of Confederation at will; This argument for abandoning the articles – for their weakness in the face of secession – was used by supporters of the new Constitution and presented by James Madison in Federalist No. 43. [e] Unlike Article VII – whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another state confirms the sovereignty of a state before 1787 – Article V does not allow a single state convention to amend the federal constitution for its own sake. In addition, it clarifies that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment, even if that state votes against the amendment in a duly convened state convention. And this rule is completely at odds with the idea that states remain sovereign after adhering to the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before they joined the Constitution.
Thus, the ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign States renounced their sovereignty and legal independence. [27] Why was Confederate President Jefferson Davis never tried for treason? According to a new book, this was because the Union felt there was a high probability that his case would raise troubling questions about the constitutionality of secession, and that a possible acquittal would signal that the Union`s war effort was unjustified.