As a matter of constitutional theory, secession was not illegal.
Certainly, people debated the notion of a perpetual union, but the
language of permanence or perpetuity was conspicuously absent from the
Constitution of 1787 (in contrast with the earlier Articles of
Confederation).  Southern legislatures could claim the right to repeal or
nullify their own acts -- including the act of ratification of the
Constitution.  It was the innovation of Abraham Lincoln (or at least he
was the most articulate in expressing the idea) that the Union was
permanent, and that secession was therefore not allowable.   That
secession's legitimacy was open to debate before that is evident in the
response of President James Buchanan to the crisis.  If the President was
willing to let them go, and to let them take possession of federal
property -- like forts -- then why wouldn't the Southern states think
they couldn't?


David Kiracofe
College of Charleston
Department of History
66 George Street
Charleston, SC 29424

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html