Southern Secession: Constitutional Or Treason?

The legality of secession was a highly debated topic in the 19th century, with Southern states arguing that they had a constitutional right to secede. The Southern states' main argument for secession was based on the Tenth Amendment, which states that any power not delegated to the federal government by the states and not prohibited by the Constitution remains a right of the states or the people. They also believed that the federal government had overstepped its constitutional powers and violated the rights of the states, particularly on the issue of slavery. However, others argue that the Southern states had no legal right to secede, as the Constitution does not mention or provide a method for secession. The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White (1869) that unilateral secession was unconstitutional, but the issue remained contentious for several generations.

Explore related products

Civil War Documents: A Collection of Primary Sources: Ordinances of Secession, Confederate Constitution, Gettysburg Address, Emancipation Proclamation, Diaries and More

$12.99

Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War (A Nation Divided: Studies in the Civil War Era)

$19.5 $22.5

Eyewitness to the Civil War: The Complete History from Secession to Reconstruction

$36.48 $45

Miss Ravenel's Conversion from Secession to Loyalty: Civil War Novel

$8.6 $15.7

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850: The History of the Controversial Law that Sparked the Confederacy’s Secession and the Civil War

$7.24 $6.95

North Carolina Unionists and the Fight Over Secession

$12.99 $19.99

The Tenth Amendment

> "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".

This was interpreted by some to mean that the states retained much, but not all, of their sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment was cited as a basis for the right of secession, as it was argued that it reserved to the states all rights which had not been specifically delegated to the federal government. This included the right to secede, as the Constitution does not explicitly forbid secession.

However, the Tenth Amendment does not explicitly mention secession, and the Constitution does not provide a process for secession. The Tenth Amendment also does not grant states the right to contravene "the supreme law of the land", which the Constitution and federal laws are declared to be. The founding fathers, such as George Washington, emphasised that the American people had created a permanent "perpetual union".

The question of whether the Southern states had a right to secede was decided by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White (1869), which ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional.

The Articles of Confederation

The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century, and the question was largely decided on the battlefield during the Civil War. The Confederate States of America, commonly referred to as the Confederacy, was an unrecognized republic that existed from 1861 to 1865. Many historians have argued that their secession from the United States was an illegal act of war.

However, others, including Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, argued that the legal basis for secession could be found in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment states that any power not delegated to the federal government by the states and not prohibited by the Constitution remains a right of the states or the people. Additionally, the Constitution is based on the principle of coequality, which means that all states are equal in dignity and rights, and no state can have more rights than another.

The Southern states' right to secede was also supported by the argument that the federal government had violated the Constitution, particularly with regard to the issue of slavery. Southern states feared that as the US acquired new territories in the west, it was only a matter of time before new non-slaveholding states were added, giving control of the government to abolitionists and leading to the complete outlawing of slavery.

In conclusion, while the Articles of Confederation did not allow for secession, the US Constitution's silence on the issue, along with interpretations of certain amendments and principles, provided a basis for the Southern states' belief that secession was their constitutional right.

States' Rights

The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century. The Constitution does not directly mention secession. However, the Southern states believed they had the right to secede from the Union, citing states' rights as a key justification for their actions.

Southern states argued that the federal government had violated their reserved rights as states, justifying their decision to withdraw from the Federal Union. They asserted that the federal government had overstepped its constitutional powers and encroached upon the rights of individual states. This belief in states' rights was deeply entrenched in Southern culture, and many Southerners felt that their states' rights were being threatened by the federal government's actions.

One specific example of this was the issue of slavery. The South's position was thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, which they considered the greatest material interest in the world. They argued that slavery was essential to commerce and civilization and that any attempt to abolish it would be a blow to both. Southern states believed that as new territories were acquired in the west, there would be bitter debates over whether slavery would be permitted in those territories. They feared that the addition of new non-slaveholding states would give control of the government to abolitionists, leading to the complete outlawing of slavery.

Another argument in support of the right of secession was based on the ratifications of the Constitution by certain states, including Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island. These states included a clause in their ratifications that permitted them to withdraw from the Union if the new government became oppressive. Virginia cited this provision when it seceded in 1861, and this argument was taken seriously by many historians.

Additionally, some Southerners argued that the legal basis for secession could be found in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment states that any power not delegated to the federal government by the states and not prohibited by the Constitution remains a right of the states or the people. They believed that the states had never delegated to the federal government any power to suppress secession, and therefore, secession remained a reserved right of the states.

Explore related products

Days of Defiance: Sumter, Secession, and the Coming of the Civil War (Vintage Civil War Library)

$4.99 $19.95

At the Precipice: Americans North and South during the Secession Crisis (Littlefield History of the Civil War Era)

$11.96 $39.95

Knights of the Golden Circle: Secret Empire, Southern Secession, Civil War (Conflicting Worlds: New Dimensions of the American Civil War)

$19.49 $39.95

The Men of Secession and Civil War, 1859-1861 (The American Crisis Series: Books on the Civil War Era)

$29.95 $48

Lincoln and the Decision for War: The Northern Response to Secession (Civil War America)

$14.99 $25

Kentucky Confederates: Secession, Civil War, and the Jackson Purchase

$19.24 $45

Frequent violations of the Constitution

The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century. The Constitution does not directly mention or provide a method for secession. However, the Southern states believed they had a constitutional right to secede, citing frequent violations of the Constitution by the Federal Government.

The people of South Carolina, for instance, asserted that the Federal Government had repeatedly violated the Constitution and encroached upon the reserved rights of the states, justifying their withdrawal from the Federal Union. They argued that the Federal Government had perverted the powers granted to it by the people, causing injury to the people of South Carolina and oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

Similarly, Texas declared that the Federal Constitution had been violated by several states, and that the Federal Government was now under the control of their enemies, who would use it for oppression rather than its intended purpose. They believed that Texas could no longer rely on the Federal Government for protection and thus had to dissolve all political connections and appeal to the patriotism of the freemen of Texas.

Virginia, which had included a clause in its ratification of the Constitution permitting withdrawal if the new government became oppressive, also seceded in 1861 on these grounds. This argument was taken seriously by many historians, who contended that if some states had the right to secede, then all states must equally have that right based on the Constitution's principle of coequality.

Mississippi's secession was also influenced by its identification with the institution of slavery, which it considered the greatest material interest in the world. They argued that slavery was essential to commerce and civilization, and that a blow against slavery was a blow against these pillars.

However, others disagreed with the South's interpretation of the Constitution. The North argued that while the Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation, it continued the "perpetual union" established under the Articles. They believed that the formation of "a more perfect union" in the Constitution necessarily implied the continuation of the union established under the Articles.

Ultimately, the question of the legality of secession was largely decided on the battlefield, with the Union armies defeating the Confederate forces in the Civil War. The Supreme Court also ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional in Texas v. White (1869), though some Americans felt that this decision did not completely or fairly resolve the issue.

The right to revolution

The Southern states' right to secede was based on the argument that the federal government had violated the rights of the states. The Southern states believed that the federal government had overreached its powers and encroached on the rights reserved for the states, and that this gave them the right to dissolve their political connection with the rest of the United States. This belief was particularly strong among those who wanted to protect the institution of slavery, which was legal in the South but had been gradually banned in the North. Southerners feared that the addition of new non-slaveholding states would lead to the institution of slavery being outlawed completely.

The right of revolution was also cited by the states of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island, which included a clause in their ratifications of the Constitution that permitted them to withdraw from the Union if the new government became oppressive. This was also the case for the Republic of Lakotah, which asserted its independence on the basis that it had never willingly joined the United States and was always a sovereign nation.

However, the legality of secession has been hotly debated, and the Constitution does not directly mention it. Some argue that the Southern states had no right to secede and that such rights were surrendered upon their ratification of the Constitution, which had no provision for secession. The Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional in Texas v. White (1869), but commented that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

Frequently asked questions