So did the south have the right to leave and form their own nation?

Unilateally?  No.

 

There most likely is.  Nothing in the Constitution, explicitly or by implication, says that secession is not allowed.  The question is in the manner in which they secede.  Secession can only be done with the consent of all the parties involved, those leaving and those staying.  So the process of leaving should be done in the same manner in with states joined in the first place - with the approval of the states as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes it did.  When Virginia seceded, it did so over the strong objections of those living in the western part of the state.  These counties formed their own Virginia legislature and petitioned Congress to recognize them as the loyal and only legitimate legislative body.  Congress did so, and it was this body which voted to split with congressional approval.

 

The legality of this process was recognized by the Supreme Court after the Civil War when they agreed to hear the case of Virginia v. West Virginia.  If West Virginia was not a state then they would not have had the right to have their case heard.

So in a nut shell:   Congress did not allow the Confederate States to secede but they did allow W.  Virginia to secede from Virginia?   Seems inconsistant eh?

 

T-Dog

I have to disagree.  The Yankee Congress not only bent, they out right broke, the system to get WbG on their own (Heathen ) side.  The Supreme Court, for all its legendary neutrality in all matters political, simply rubber stamped a passed event and then broke for beers.    It is all moot anyway, the War is long over and WbG ain't going back to Ole Virginny and that be the end of it.

Also, as far as the Heathens ALLOWING the Southern States to seceede, prior to Sumter they had neither the authority, nor the power, to prevent it.  After Sumter, they had no more time.

 

Disagreeing with the decision does not mean that Congress or the Courts broke the system to get what they wanted.

Usual, some time ago, at Brand X History Site, you posted an explanation about how territories become states.  It was so good and so understandable that I saved it to my computer so I could refer to it when my mind became jumbled about this whole secession issue.  Unfortunately, that computer was declared DOA and I've had to replace it. 

 

If you and Lew decide to debate this issue in earnest, then I know I'm on the brink of witnessing an extraordinary exchange.  Unlike your former opponents, Lew is intelligent and level-headed.  He doesn't spew opinions from an emotional standpoint like they did.

Well I'm not sure if I know exactly what you're talking about but I'll take a stab at it.

 

I believe you're referring to my response to those Confederate supporters who say unilateral secession as practiced by the confederacy was legal because a state which freely joins the Union should be able to freely leave.  That is wrong on several points.  One, states do not freely join the union.  They are admitted, allowed in only with the permission of other states as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress.  If you look at the Constitution the permission of the territory isn't even needed.  And while there has never been a case where a state was not admitted without the approval of the people of the territory, there are also a number of cases where states were not admitted until years after the people of the territory first requested admission.

 

Once allowed into the Union, states cannot combine or split without  the consent of the other states.  Both would have the effect of removing a state from the Union and neither is permitted without approval of Congress.  The fact of the matter is that states cannot change their borders by a fraction of an inch without the approval of Congress.  Given all this then it is no stretch of the imagination to conclude that a state cannot leave the Union without the consent of the other states as well.

 

If you look at Article I, Section 10 and Article IV are full of actions which states are either prohibited entirely or else allowed only with the consent of Congress.  One common feature in almost all these actions is that they have the potential to either harm the interests of other states or the federal government.  If actions such as these require congressional approval then why shouldn't secession and all the possible harm that can do to the remaining states require approval at all?  By implication is does.

 

So that's it.  Secession isn't forbidden, but if it is to be accomplished then it must be done with approval of all the parties impacted.  I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

That's exactly what I was referring to, Usual.  Thanks.

Just wanted you to know that I haven't given up on the WbG thing.  My Dr. has severely curtailed my computer time (sitting in a hard chair) so I have been researching somethings and will post when I can. 

What's the problem sitting in a hard chair, Lew?