The Empire States of America

This modern notion that Americans have that the United States is a single entity or one large nation is inconsistent with how Americans understood their citizenship in the 18th and 19th centuries. If we were to go back in time before the 1860s and ask a man from Virginia or New York to which country they were a citizen of, they would have respond with their respective State. When the Southern States seceded from the Union of States, they did not combine to create a new country; the States were already countries in their own rights and formed a confederacy, exactly like the founders did when they created the Union to fought British tyranny.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the state of the Union in Democracy in America that

The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If once of the states chooses to withdraw for the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right. (Tocqueville 1945)

The Southern States declaring their independence and reclaiming their sovereign rights was not a radical or revolutionary thought in 1860. There were no documents restricting or denying any state the right of secession at that time and it was understood by Americans that secession was a right. The very Declaration of Independence was a document declaring to the King of England that the colonies were independent and free States.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. (Jefferson n.d.)

When it was declared at a Special Convention of the People of South Carolina “that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved and the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may or right do,” this declaration was not a radical idea. (Carolina 2008)

 

In fact, there were several instances prior to the War Between the States when secession was threatened. Both the northern States and southern States prior to 1860 felt at odds with the party in control of the Federal Government at various times and threatened secession. Events such as the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, the annexation of Texas, and even the Mexican War stirred up anti-Southern State sentiments among Northerners. All these issues were considered to be in the best interest of the Southern States or in reality the Democratic-Republican Party or Jeffersonians (also known as Anti-Federalists as labeled by the Northerners).

With Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana territory from France, many New England leaders felt that Jefferson overstepped his authority as president and were contemplating secession from the Union. In a letter to John C. Breckinridge on August 12, 1803, Jefferson had this to say about secession:

“…Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?…The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” (Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826. Letters n.d.)

New Englanders were again upset when President James Madison (a Jeffersonian) declared war against Great Britain on June 18, 1812 (the War of 1812); they met in 1814 at the Hartford Convention to discuss secession. In 1832, with high tariffs causing economic difficulties among agrarian states, South Carolina threatened to nullify the federal law or secede from the Union. 

No one cried out and said that the New England States or South Carolina could not secede from the Union in either instance, it was understood that it was their right to if the majority of the people of those individual States voted for it. 
 

As early as 1825, the right of secession was also taught at West Point as being acceptable. Textbooks on constitutional law referenced William Rawle’s right of secession in his book, View of the Constitution. Many of the generals who fought for the Confederate States of America were educated at West Point and would have been taught the following information about state sovereignty and secession in Rawle’s book.

It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle of which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

            This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood…. (Rawle 1829)

Rawle continues in his book to explain how a state would go about seceding from the Union.

The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution.

            But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal.

            To withdraw from the Union is a solemn, serious act. Whenever it may appear expedient to the people of a state, it must be manifested in a direct and unequivocal manner. (Ibid, 302)

Even Alexander Hamilton, who was a champion for centralized government and a man idolized by Lincoln, would have opposed the use military force to keep the Southern States in the Union. Hamilton made the following statement at the Constitutional convention.

To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised….What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. (The Debates in the Convention of the State of New York, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution n.d.)

Regardless of the issues and the causes that brought the States to war with each other, the States had a right to secede. When Lincoln forced the Southern States back into the Union by buoyant point, he destroyed any reality of a “Union” between the States. Lincoln imposed his will and philosophy of a central government upon all the States. The Southern States opposed this form of government and attempted to continue to run their State governments based on the Constitution. The State’s lost their rights and their sovereignty as a result of this war. Lincoln destroyed the Union with his actions and created an Empire. He destroyed that very Union formed by our Founders and the people of the States.

Works Cited

The Debates in the Convention of the State of New York, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. n.d. http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ny.htm (accessed October 15, 2013).

Carolina, Government of South. The Avalon Project. 2008. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp (accessed October 15, 2013).

Ibid. "A View of the Constitution." By William Rawle, 302. Philadelphia: Philip H Nicklin, Law Bookseller, 1829.

Jefferson, Thomas. The Charters of Freedom. n.d. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html (accessed October 15, 2013).

—. Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826. Letters. n.d. http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=156&division=div1 (accessed October 15, 2013).

Rawle, William. In A View of the Constitution, 296. Philadelphia: Philip H Nicklin, Law Bookseller, 1829.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. "Democracy in America." 381. New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1945.