About the civil war and secession?

John Calhoun put forth the claims of nullification and secession and claimed that it was a states right to leave when they chose, he even claimed that James Madison agreed with him when he wrote the Virginia Resolutions of 1798. The only problem with Calhoun's claim was that Madison was still alive and adamantly refuted each and every one of his claims as to what the Constitution actually said.

The main pillar of Nullification is the assumption that Sovereignty is a unit, at once indivisible & unalienable; that the States therefore individually retain it as they originally held it, and consequently that no portion of it can belong to the U. S.

But is it not the Constn. itself, necessarily the offspring of a Sovn. Authy? What but the highest pol: Authy. a sovereign Authy: could make such a Constn.; a Constn. wch. makes a Govt. a Govt. which makes laws; laws which operate likes the laws of all other Govts, by a penal & physical force, on the individuals subject to the laws; and finally laws declared to be the supreme law of the land; any thing in the Constn. or laws of the individual State notwithstanding.

And where does the Sovy. which makes such a Constn. reside? It resides not in a Single State but in the people of each of the several States, uniting with those of the others in the express & solemn compact which forms the Constn. To the extent of that Compact or Constitution, therefore, the people of the several States must be a sovereign as they are a United people."

"It becomes all therefore who are friends of a Govt. based on free principles to reflect, that by denying the possibility of a System partly federal and partly consolidated, and who would convert ours into one either wholly federal or wholly consolidated, in neither of which forms have individual rights, public order, and external safety, been all duly maintained, they aim a deadly blow at the last hope of true liberty on the face of the Earth. Its enlightened votaries, must perceive the necessity of such a modification of power as will not only divide it between the whole & parts, but provide for occurring questions as well between the whole & the parts as between the parts themselves. A political system which does not contain an effective provision, for a peaceable decision of all controversies arising within itself, would be a Govt. in name only. Such a provision is obviously essential; and it is equally obvious that it cannot be either peaceable or effective by making every part an authoritative Umpire; The final appeal in such cases, must be to the authority of the whole, not to that of the parts separately & independently. This was the view taken of the subject, whilst the Constitution was under the consideration of the people (see Federalist No. ) It was this view of it which dictated the Clause declaring that the Constitution & laws of the U S. should be the supreme law of the Land, any thing in the Constn or laws of any of the States to the Contrary not with standing (see Art: ) It was the same view which specially prohibited certain powers and acts to the States, among them any laws violating the obligation of contracts, and which dictated the appellate provision in the Judicial Act passed by the first Congress under the Constitution (see Act ) And it may be confidently foretold, that notwithstanding the clouds which a patriotic jealousy or other causes, have at times thrown over the subject, it is the view which will be permanently taken of it, with a surprize hereafter that any other should ever have been contended for."

"Madison, who presumably knew something about the constitutional theory of the American Founding, was horrified by the idea that the coordinate sovereignty retained by the States, as stated in the Tenth Amendment, implied the power of nullification, interposition, or secession."

"Arguments about the nullification doctrine and the right of secession were settled, once and for all, by the Civil War (1861–65). After the Union victory over the Confederate states, there was no more serious advocacy of a state's right to nullify a federal law or to secede from the federal Union. The Supreme Court, in Texas v. White (1869), concluded that the Constitution created “an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.”

whale

Secession was illegal because Lincoln said so. The Constitution doesn't say whether states could secede or not. So it was up to the precedent set when it finally happened. South Carolina actually seceeded under the last few weeks of the James Buchanan administration and he did nothing. It is quite possible that had a President other than Lincoln been put in a similar situation we would have well less than 50 states today. It wasn't an easy decision, which is why Lincoln is considered one of the greatest presidents to date.

Fascinating question, Rick! It would appear that some pro-secession folks have argued that there is nothing in the Constitution that strictly prohibits secession. Anti-secession people have said that the wording, "in order to form a more perfect Union" indicates the intent of the Framers to create a permanent Union of states. Given the emotions of the time and the rapid change within the nation, I think it's entirely possible that a court battle over secession would've gone in favor of the South. Secession nowadays doesn't seem very practical, despite the occasional call for it in certain parts of the country.

Any other president may have left them go, but Lincoln had the impossible job of keeping the country from shattering completely. His concerns over what the border states would do is probably the key to his success. If the border states had gone with the Confederate states it would have been impossible to put the Union back together. His decision to announce the Emancipation Proclamation kept the border states with the Union because when he announced the Proclamation January 1, 1863 it was clear Lincoln was asking for total war and the South was going to be crushed.

A state cannot legally exit the union. There is no legal precedent of such things, besides the civil war. I would compare it to a child trying to secede from its family, not going to happen.