Motivations for rebellion and secession from a nation or kingdom

[Bill the Cat]

As they claimed they were no longer part of the United States, inherently they were breaking any law they no longer recognized, the obvious one that more directly led to the war being the attack on Fort Sumpter (I am fairly certain that armed attack on a military fort is a violation of some law).

Actually, they were evicting unlawful residents of South Carolina's sovereign territory. If anyone was breaking the law, it was the Northern army who refused to leave.

But if you wish a more specific case, from Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Also, while admittedly given after the fact, the Supreme Court established in Texas v. White that the unilateral secession attempted was illegal (this was the rationale for why Texas still retained bonds it sold during the Civil War--because Texas's attempt to leave the union was not legal, actions done under the "Confederate government" were invalid which included the sales of the bonds).

Post hoc explanation. And it was wrong. The Constitution only has teeth because the states ratified it. They chose to enter the union, and had the same legal right to leave it.

[Terraceth]

Actually, they were evicting unlawful residents of South Carolina's sovereign territory. If anyone was breaking the law, it was the Northern army who refused to leave.

It was not sovereign territory. It was part of the United States that was in revolt.

It was still in force. It was just that a revolt was going on, and that therefore the federal government was using its power to put it down. Completely applicable.

Now, if the rebellion had been successful, then indeed the Constitution would have no force because they would have successfully seceded. That's what ended up happening in the Revolutionary War. But that was not the case here.

Post hoc explanation. And it was wrong. The Constitution only has teeth because the states ratified it. They chose to enter the union, and had the same legal right to leave it.

This right is not stated in the Constitution. Actually, there was discussion of stating such a right when writing the Constitution, but it was rejected, indicating that the right was not included; indeed, James Madison states secession is not allowed under the constitution in a later letter.

Additionally, if we wish to go with the logic that they had the "they same legal right to leave it" as enter, then let us examine the legal right of a state entering the union. It states that new states may be added with the consent of congress. If that is their legal right, then their legal right to leave would also require the consent of congress, which was not the case here.

[Bill the Cat]

It was not sovereign territory. It was part of the United States that was in revolt.

South Carolina seceded from the union. It was no longer part of the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbade states from voting themselves out the same way they voted themselves in.

It was still in force. It was just that a revolt was going on, and that therefore the federal government was using its power to put it down. Completely applicable.

Incorrect. Since there was not explicit forbidding of secession, each state still held the power to determine what is best for them. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Denying secession was not a power delegated to the US by the Constitution and not specifically prohibited by it to the states. The 10th Amendment reserved the right to secede to the state since it was not stated in the Constitution as a power.

Now, if the rebellion had been successful, then indeed the Constitution would have no force because they would have successfully seceded. That's what ended up happening in the Revolutionary War. But that was not the case here.

Incorrect. Once the state officially seceded, the Constitution was not the law of that state.

This right is not stated in the Constitution. Actually, there was discussion of stating such a right when writing the Constitution, but it was rejected, indicating that the right was not included;

Then the 10th Amendment reserves the right to secede to the state.

indeed, James Madison states secession is not allowed under the constitution in a later letter.

And 15 years after Jefferson became President, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, he said:

https://founders.archives.gov/docume.../03-10-02-0101

Additionally, if we wish to go with the logic that they had the "they same legal right to leave it" as enter, then let us examine the legal right of a state entering the union. It states that new states may be added with the consent of congress. If that is their legal right, then their legal right to leave would also require the consent of congress, which was not the case here.

The original 13 states became states by ratifying the Constitution at the Convention. There was no consent of a Congress to invite them in.

[One Bad Pig]

The original 13 states became states by ratifying the Constitution at the Convention. There was no consent of a Congress to invite them in.

Good point - but the remaining states had to petition for entry. If we're going by that, then only the 13 original states could exit without permission from Congress.

[Terraceth]

South Carolina seceded from the union. It was no longer part of the United States.

South Carolina trying to secede doesn't mean it actually did.

At best, I believe we could consider it (along with the rest of the Confederacy) a disputed area.

Incorrect. Since there was not explicit forbidding of secession, each state still held the power to determine what is best for them.

Even if we accept there is no explicit forbidding of secession, there is explicit allowing of the federal government to use military force to suppress insurrections, meaning we would end up with the paradoxical situation of a state having the right to secede but the government having the right to suppress said secession, thereby turning it into a situation of whether the seceding state(s) could fight off the federal government, which is basically what ended up happening.

And 15 years after Jefferson became President, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, he said:

https://founders.archives.gov/docume.../03-10-02-0101

First, Thomas Jefferson, despite his historical importance, had virtually nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution, as he was in France at the time. James Madison, on the other hand, was one of the most important figures in its composition (in fact, he is quite arguably the single most important figure). I therefore put considerably more emphasis on what James Madison has to say about what the constitution says about something than I would Thomas Jefferson.

Second, Thomas Jefferson does not appear to be speaking of legalities, but his personal preferences. Something can be illegal and you can still advocate for it or be in acceptance of it being done; Harriet Tubman's actions in freeing other slaves is seen as heroic by many, but I don't think any of those people would claim what she was doing was actually legal. People do illegal things all the time, something being illegal just means that the government can actually do something about you doing it if it so wishes.

The original 13 states became states by ratifying the Constitution at the Convention. There was no consent of a Congress to invite them in.

And most of the states in the Confederacy were not among those 13 states.

Still, some were. So let's return to the "They chose to enter the union, and had the same legal right to leave it" on that basis and examine their choice to enter. The thing about the creation of the union via the ratification of the Constitution was that no state actually did have the right to enter the union on its own, because 2/3 of the states were required to adopt the constitution before it could take effect. So therefore, if a state had the right to enter the union as long as 2/3 of the states agreed (including itself), then a state would only have the right to leave the union if 2/3 of the states agreed (including itself). Ironically, this would make secession harder than simply getting a majority of congress.

Regardless of whether we should accept the original standard (agreement of 2/3 of states) or the standard of admitting new states (majority of congress) for the right of entry for a particular state, it is obvious that neither of these criteria were met in the attempted secession.

[Joel]

Can you provide an example where in history where a part of country simply decided to secede and told the nation or kingdom to 'stick it,' and just walk away without consequences of war. In fact there is no precedence in history to support your assertion

Haven't there been lots of peaceful secessions in world history? What about the secession of Ireland from the United Kingdom? Scotland has voted on secession before and presumably that would be a peaceful secession too if that vote ever succeeds. Or the Republic of Slovak from Czechoslovakia? South Sudan?

[Joel]

Good point - but the remaining states had to petition for entry. If we're going by that, then only the 13 original states could exit without permission from Congress.

I recall reading about a later law passed under Jefferson, I think, that declared that all subsequent states have the same legal status and rights as the 13 original states.