What were the federal laws regarding secession? In other words, once a state was admitted to the union, how could it legally leave?
Under the original, unammended constitution, each state had sovereign rights which some interpreted as including the right to affiliate with the union of other states under the limited government set forth in the constitution. It would seem to follow, then, that if the states have a right to affiliate, then they also have a right to separate. The civil war was really a clash between two differing economies, each trying to take advantage for itself over the other and each with its own dependancies on the other..... greed and control. Slavery was a side issue, as by the time of the civil war, ownership of slaves was already on the decline and in some parts of the South as well as the North, Negros, as free men, were already owning property, establishing communities, and setting up businesses. After asserting its rights as a sovereign state which had jusridiction over all the land and post within the state, SC was provoked by the attempt of the Federal government to send supplies and then forces to a post within that state. The people of that state, with southern sympathizers in other states saw this as an invasion upon their sovereign rights just as real as an invasion by an enemy intent on doing harm. As far as I'm concerned, history has proved them right.
With blacks represented by a man of faith as nobel and intellectual as Fredrick Douglas, the son of slaves and himself a freed man after a period of slavery in his youth...... there was excellant counsel and advice for the freeing of slaves and the acknowledgement of their humanity and rights under God based on the constitution as it already existed, without added ammendments. The constitutional arguements which he supported did not receive much attention or support from those who saw their expendiency for control and power would be nulified by such challenge, if successful. They needed a cause which was more unifying as a cause and brought less attention to the other elements of difference as existed in economy and industry..... of which were insufficient in themselves to divide a nation and unify the polarization in each divide to accomplish a civil war.
The south did not see itself as fighting for slavery but for the preservation of its agrarian economy and the rights within each state to rule and govern its people, where, among other things, each state had the right to determine if or when slavery was banned. The north, with many dependancies on the raw material and agriculture goods of the south, were not inclined to rally around divisions of economy to support a war. However, the north, having extablished itself as against slavery, accepted this cause as sufficient to rally together and fight its brothers in the south. The roots of civil war was in the making well before Lincoln came to office. But Lincoln was a self educated man, with principals and eloquence in speech, but relatively little experience in government or administration. He was of moody temperment, though quiet, and had cycles of depression and near dispair. While it is my opinion that he was a man of good character and sound principals, he also had weaknesses in confidence which made him open to manipulation and the persuasions of others. Only guessing can account for what reconstruction of the union would have been like if he had not been assassinated. We can look back to that era and see how the ambition and powers of people in the federal government, some to evil and some to good, to make an example for the permanence of the union and to prolong a suffering and delay the granting in reality of the rights of those who participated in separating. While it may be said that the gentleman's code of chilvary extended to those who led and fought in the separation, the same cannot be said for the condition of the people and the recognition of their rights by the union.
For as much as we seem to give Lincoln credit for his learning..... he really was not intellectually challenged by experience or broad development of knowledge to be discerning in the ways of communist philosophy as contrasted with free enterprise and proprietary ownership of property.
