Many people say yes and cite the 10th Amendment. However, scholars counter this with the assertion that the founders intended to create a more perfect and perpetual union than that created under The Articles of Confederation (a document that begins and ends with the assertion that the Union is perpetual)
Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole…With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands….To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute: they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. -G. Washington
What are your thoughts?
They lost, so the answer is no.
When they seceded, they didn’t bring it before a Court, they simply did it. The Civil War thus ensued.
It might be fun and an intellectual exercise to see if it is legal to do so, but as a practical matter, it will be met with force.
Texas should keep that in mind these days.
It became on the time of the civil conflict, despite if the southern states have been compelled to sign a settlement on the tip that this does not take place lower back. some have argued that it became never constitutional, however the appropriate courtroom refused to here the case in basic terms till now the conflict and stated incredibly that the conflict became inevitable. The south did no longer prefer to bypass to conflict, Virginia and North Carolina stated that they did no longer prefer to compliment aspects as a results of fact they have been affiliated with many people interior the south and North, Abraham Lincoln stated your with us or against us. there is alway’s the moral arguement of slavery which must be positioned to the realm whilst finding at it constitutionaly. attempt to discover memoirs of Senators Congressmen and judges that lived at that factor, it may provide a solid concept of what became happening maximum excellent as much as the civil conflict. Abraham Lincoln became no Angel of mercy a strategies from it. The components argued for this are the ninth 10th and 14th replace, the arguement is going extra became it constitutional to invade the south?
The Civil War should have been called the war for Confederate States Independence. they did not have a Constitutional right to secede but they no longer recognized the U.S. Constitution when they seceded. If they recognized the U.S. Constitution they had the right to nullify any laws that the Federal government imposed on them that they felt were unconstitutional.
I don’t care what any of the Founders may have said or what judges have since ruled. If you’re going to talk about people being free then that MUST include the freedom to secede if that’s their wish.
Constitutionally or not, they did it and I agree with them. Texas does have the right to secede, but it has to do it in a non standard way. Texas has the right to break up into 5 different states, those 5 new states would not belong to the union, they’ve have to be accepted into the union should they choose to, so in effect Texas would be no more, but it would also not be in the union.
The colonies had the right to ":secede": from England by force of arms. The south had the same rights…then and now.
I believe they did have the right to go on their own and Lincoln should have let them, the south on it’s own would be no better than mexico today
No, but they did it anyway. Southerners have a reputation for acting first and thinking (maybe) later.