Did The South Have The Legal Right To Secede?

By Jay Bellamy

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of natures God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind require that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these rights to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards to their future security.

(From the Declaration of Independence)

Whenever the discussion of secession arises in this case the Souths right to secede before the start of the Civil War this document is one of two that is most often referred to when defending the Souths right to leave the Union. The question is this does it really give justifiable cause for secession, and did the South meet the requirements to do so?

When looking at the Declaration of Independence its important to remember that it was simply that a Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. While it may be a worthy set of principles to live by, it is not a binding legal document; the Supreme Court itself has ruled that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing. Putting that aside, the very first paragraph states that a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Did the South do this? Well, it would seem that many reasons have been given over the years; but truth be told, despite claims of states rights and abuses committed against the South, there were only two reasons for secession. The first was simply because the election of 1860 did not go in the Souths favor. Several southern states had made it clear even before 1860 that they would secede if a Republican was elected president. In other words, they attempted political blackmail by threatening to leave the Union if a candidate of their own choosing was not elected. When Abraham Lincoln a Republican was elected, they made good on that threat.

The Declaration further states that when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards to their future security. So where is the evidence of a long train of abuses and usurpations? For the most part, the southern states were quite content with their place in the Union right up until the election of 1860. In fact, many southerners including those living in states that were talking secession were fearful that a rebellion would be the Souths downfall. Knowing that the South was dependent

on northern industry, they were afraid that without it they may not be able to survive. It wasnt until the threat of a pro-abolition candidate being elected president that the South truly became unhappy with their situation. Although many in the southern states feared that Lincoln would become a despot leader, the Declaration hardly gave them the right to throw off the government - especially a government that hadnt even taken office yet - based simply on a fear or hunch. This sounds more like the light and transient causes the Declaration warns against.

And what was the second reason? Slavery, plain and simple! Many have attempted to paint secession in a more favorable light by claiming that it wasnt slavery, per se, but states rights that led to secession. However, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stevens himself had proclaimed that the proper status of the Negro in our form of civilization was the immediate cause of the late rupture . He further expounded that Our new government is founded upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural condition. Its interesting to note that Stevens had at one time stated that revolutions are much easier started than controlled, and the men who begin them, even for the best purposes and object, seldom end them. Secession was indeed a form of revolution, and here we had Stevens helping to lead a revolution that in the past he would have predicted destined to fail.

When examining South Carolinas Declaration of Immediate Causes - the state proclamation authorizing secession - it clearly mentions that their actions were due to an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery. Floridas Declaration of Causes claims that the ultimate goal of the Lincoln administration was to ensure that no more slave states shall be admitted into the confederacy and this was cause enough for secession. And when referring to the policies of the new administration, the Georgia proclamation reads, The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization, and further declared that we refuse to submit to that judgment.

It was believed by many in the southern leadership that although Lincoln had promised not to interfere with slavery where it already existed, non slave-holding states (including any future states in the new territories) would soon outnumber slave-holding states in Congress, eventually leading to slavery being abolished everywhere. Once again the southern states were acting purely on assumption and not on any deed that had actually been committed against them. No train of abuses or usurpations here.

So why the states rights ruse? It was the hope of the Confederate government to enlist the help and aid of England and/or France to their cause. Knowing that both countries had outlawed slavery decades before, they were fearful that neither country would support a government that listed the continuation of slavery as their primary justification for war. As it turned out, they were right. Also, knowing that many of the young men who would eventually be asked to fight and possibly die for the cause had never actually owned a slave (only a quarter to one third of southern homes owned slaves), it was necessary to invoke a sense of pride in their homeland and a belief that they were simply fighting for their God-given rights as southerners. Once the war was over former Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Vice President Stevens despite his previous words proclaimed that the war was never about slavery but instead about these so-called states rights. As Civil War historian James McPherson writes, To concede that the Confederacy had broken up the United States and launched a war that killed 620,000 Americans in a vain attempt to keep four million people in slavery would not confer honor on their lost cause. It would seem that even had the Declaration of Independence been a binding legal document, the South failed to meet the requirements for separating from the Union. They were not honest in declaring the causes for separation, and there was no actual history of abuses being brought down upon them.

Now, what is the other document referred to when defending secession? That would be the Constitution itself. It should be noted that nowhere in the Constitution is the word secession ever mentioned, let alone the right to do so guaranteed! However, many point to the 10th amendment as evidence of Constitutional approval. It reads: 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. In other words, the states can enact whatever laws they please if the Constitution fails to grant or deny a particular right. It seems ambiguous at best to suggest that this refers to secession. It is doubtful that the framers of the Constitution ever envisioned their country at war with itself; therefore they felt no need to address secession. Certainly they would have been clearer on this issue had a civil war been considered, and they certainly would have set up parameters to address when and how secession could take place. Its highly unlikely that an issue of this magnitude would have been left so open to interpretation. After all, were talking about the dividing of a nation!

Comments attributed to Thomas Jefferson - the principle author of the Declaration of Independence - would seem to suggest that he supported secession, but nothing could be further from the truth. Although he may have personally believed that secession was the right of the people, he also felt it unwise. In a 1792 letter to George Washington he writes: I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the Union into two or more parts. And to the Rhode Island assembly in 1801: It is a momentous truth, and happily of universal impression on the public mind, that our safety rests on the preservation of our Union. In regards to the 1820 sectional crisis in Missouri he wrote: The experiment of separation would soon prove to both that they had mutually miscalculated their best interests. And even were the parties in Congress to secede in passion, the soberer people would call a convention and cement again the severance attempted by the insanity of their functionaries. So although Jefferson believed in the right of secession, he may have felt it so unwise and so dangerous that it should not be made a guaranteed right.

Even Colonel Robert E. Lee, when asked to stay on with the Union army, told President Lincoln that although he felt compelled to resign his commission and return south to defend his home state of Virginia, he personally believed that secession was unconstitutional. In a letter to his son Rooney Lee wrote: The framers of the Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom, and forbearance to its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. Lee further stated that

secession would only lead to anarchy and that he could anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union.

It has always been left up to the Supreme Court to interpret Constitutional issues, and they did just that only four years after the end of the Civil War. In the case of Texas vs. White the reconstruction government of Texas sued to reclaim bonds they had previously owned that were sold by the Confederate government to finance state military operations during the course of the war. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, speaking for the majority, wrote that under the original Articles of Confederation the Union was declared to be perpetual, but the Constitution was adopted to form a more perfect Union once it became apparent that the Articles did not provide for an effective government. The court further ruled that the Constitution did not allow for secession and therefore any actions taken by the Confederate government should be considered null and void. It was decided that, because there was no provision allowing for secession, Texas should be entitled to the return of the bonds or their monetary value. Whether one believes this was a proper decision or not, it is the only ruling ever handed down on the legality of secession.

In his article How the South rationalizes secession, Glen W. Lafantasie writes, If the founders had wanted to create a federation of independent nations, such as the modern European Union, they would have done so. If they wanted to create a union of autonomous countries aligned under a single head of state, such as the United Kingdoms Commonwealth of Nations, they would have done so. Instead, we were and are a Union undivided - just as we were always meant to be.

In conclusion I would suggest that secession was in and of itself illegal. I base this on the fact that the Declaration of Independence was not a binding legal document and therefore could not be held up as an argument in support of secession, and because the Constitution never truly addresses the subject of secession. As mentioned earlier, it would be a stretch to imply that the 10th amendment shows a right to secede. Lincoln himself had said in his first Inaugural Address that It is safe to assert that no

government proper, in its organic law ever had a provision for its own termination. Although it is my belief that the founding fathers would have addressed the issue of secession more clearly had they considered the possibility that the country they had helped to form, the country that stood united in its fight for independence from Great Britain, would one day go to war against itself, Lincoln makes a valid point. To my knowledge there is no government in the world that legally allows for secession or revolution. However, if one continues to believe that secession was permitted by the Declaration and the Constitution, I would still say that the South did not meet the requirements as outlined in the Declaration; therefore the South did not have the legal right to secede.