This is an opinion piece. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to that State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Forgive the length of my reply. This subject stirs in me not just deep conviction, but a profound sense of historical clarity.
Your article rightly asserts that Southern secession in 1861 was rooted in constitutional principle. But what you present—artfully, and perhaps cautiously—as a bold and controversial opinion is, in truth, a legal and historical reality. One that has been systematically buried beneath generations of political mythology and moral oversimplification.
Let’s be clear: The Southern states had every right—legal, constitutional, historical, and moral—to withdraw from the Union. The argument against their right was not rooted in law. It was rooted in politics. And Lincoln’s refusal to recognize that right was not a defense of constitutional order. It was the violent denial of it. As I've grown more knowledgeable throughout my life, perhaps nothing has tainted the reputation of Lincoln for me more than his stubborn insistence that the Union was meant to be perpetual.
The Union was formed through the voluntary ratification of the Constitution by sovereign states. It was a compact among equals, not a contract of submission. States like Virginia and New York made this explicit in their ratification documents, reserving the right to resume delegated powers if the federal government became abusive or oppressive.
To claim that states could enter but not leave is to fundamentally rewrite the logic of American self-government. If a people have the right to consent to a union, they necessarily have the right to withdraw that consent. Otherwise, the Union is not a republic. It is a prison.
The federal government derives all its authority from the Constitution. It has no inherent sovereignty. Its powers are enumerated, delegated, and limited. When that delegation is abused, when the government ceases to represent the interests of its constituent states, those states have the right to reclaim their original sovereignty.
This is not radical. It is foundational.
The Tenth Amendment, the structure of the Constitution, and the writings of the Founders all affirm this principle. Secession was not rebellion. It was a lawful, reasoned, and democratic assertion of political independence. It was no different in principle from the American colonies separating from Britain.
Lincoln’s claim that the Union was perpetual had no basis in the Constitution. It was his own interpretation, formed out of political necessity, not constitutional truth. The courts had never ruled on secession. Congress had never outlawed it. And no clause in the Constitution prohibits a state from withdrawing.
So when Lincoln sent troops to suppress secession, he was not enforcing the law. He was declaring war on a political doctrine he disagreed with.
He chose force over dialogue. He chose invasion over negotiation.
And in doing so, he shattered the very constitutional order he claimed to be preserving.
In the article, you gesture toward the legality of secession but then back away from the moral implications of what followed. I understand why you did so.
But, as a commentor and not the author, I will say it plainly: the war waged against the South was not only unconstitutional, it was unjust.
The South seceded peacefully, through legislative conventions, popular votes, and official declarations. It asked to be left alone. It formed a new government, sent emissaries to Washington, and sought a peaceful separation.
Lincoln refused. He initiated war to prevent it.
He did not act to “preserve the Union” so much as to preserve federal control over a region that had chosen, by every right, to govern itself. In doing so, he sanctioned a war that killed three-quarters of a million Americans and permanently redefined the relationship between the states and the federal government—not through consent, but through conquest.
Let us not confuse historical revisionism with fact. Lincoln himself said repeatedly that the war was not about ending slavery. In his letter to Horace Greeley, he said if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do it. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t apply to slave states that remained in the Union.
The war was about power—centralized federal power versus state sovereignty. Slavery was a factor, yes, but not the cause of war. It became the moral banner only after the fact, used to justify the bloodshed and recast Lincoln as a messianic liberator instead of a constitutional aggressor.
The Southern states did not secede because they hated the Union. They seceded because the Union had ceased to respect their rights. Tariff policy bled their economy. Radical Republicans made clear that their institutions and way of life were under siege. And Lincoln’s election, without a single electoral vote from the South, made one thing unmistakable: the South had lost all political leverage within the system.
The Southern states chose independence over submission. They chose self-government over domination.
And for that choice, they were invaded, vilified, and nearly destroyed.
You end the article by invoking a hope that young Southerners remember the legal basis of secession. On that, we agree. But I would argue that we must go further.
They must also be taught that the war waged against that right was neither noble nor necessary. It was the death knell of the republic the Founders envisioned—a republic of consent, restraint, and limited power.
Secession was not a failure of American principles. It was their final defense.
And in crushing it, Lincoln and the post-war federal government replaced a constitutional Union with an indivisible empire.
The South was right. Constitutionally. Morally. Historically.
Those of us who say the South was right are often dismissed or denounced—but the arguments stand, plain and unflinching, for anyone willing to confront the facts. Yes, slavery casts a long shadow. And rightly so. It was a moral failing—not only of the South, but of the entire Union, North included, which protected, permitted, and profited from it for decades. What we now condemn was then legal, constitutional, and embedded across the American landscape.
But we must be clear: the war was not waged to end slavery. It was waged to prevent secession. Lincoln said as much—again and again. His letters, his policies, his own words make that undeniable. The Emancipation Proclamation itself carved out exceptions for Union-held slave states, proving it was a political tactic, not a moral crusade.
Remove slavery from the equation—as Lincoln himself often did—and what remains is a constitutional crisis, resolved not by law or debate, but by invasion and conquest.
Once that truth is recognized, one conclusion becomes inescapable: the South was right—constitutionally, philosophically, and historically. Lincoln was wrong—not merely in execution, but in principle. And the nation he forged from the wreckage of that war bears little resemblance to the republic the Founders envisioned: a Union of consent, not coercion.
Monica, I was on a late night writing spree when I wrote my overly long and mostly unnecessary comment. I appreciate your courtesy. But I do apologize if I stepped on your toes at all. That was not my intention.
I add this now because I just reread what I wrote. There are points where it seems I'm pushing back against what you wrote and that is not what I intended at all. I think and I hope that you know that is true, but I wanted to clearly say so.
I think your series of articles have been fantastic. This one might have been the best of the bunch. I do realize that many or most of the points I made in my comment you have made in your articles.
My comment was partly for the benefit of other readers but mostly because your article stirred up my passion for the subject and I needed to write the words down!
Jason, I took no offense in your reply. Like I mentioned to a previous subscriber in this thread, that I will continue to research more on the subject because of the common interest of the subject.
I was able to bid on many items during a dream auction of Civil War era recently, of which I won numerous books and newspapers printed during the war years and shortly thereafter. The books which I was enormously out-bidded on was about secession, Jefferson Davis, including original pages from his diary while he was imprisoned, and books about the prisons of the war, as well as a very extensive collection of Harper’s Weekly originals. But, to my great surprise, I did find out who purchased them, and the private library where they are stored, which so happens to be at the Confederate Museum, and my favorite place to research.
The is no describing the feeling I get when I hold an original piece of history in my hands. The descendants of the Sons of Confederate Veterans who run the museum have become my friends, and the respect I have for each and every one of them is very much reciprocated. I have been blessed to be acquainted with these gentile and knowledgeable men whose ancestors became a part of Southern history, and were the original signers of the Ordinance of Secession, in Abbeville, SC. I was also honored when the branch president presented me with my “Green Card,” a few years back, it was then when I knew, South Carolina was where I belonged.
I'm glad you took it the way I intended. I thought you would but just wanted to make sure. It's easy to lose tone and meaning when writing online!
I can't imagine what I would do if I had access to such materials. I probably wouldn't leave the room for weeks. I haven't had a chance to read your latest article yet but will as soon as possible.
I think I mentioned before that I had, long ago, considered writing a book on the subject of secession. I found some of my notes a while back and they are very much in line with the things you've been writing, especially as far as the points you've made. I've really enjoyed reading your articles!
Excellent addition to the discussion. I admire your elucidation and wish my comment were as elegant. I thank you and Monica’s Dark Corner for your contribution to this subject, one that I hold near and dear to my heart. Thank you both.
Thank you for your most kind reply. It seems the subject of secession is one of interest to many and so, therefore, I will continue to research more on the subject.
Great work! It is on the back of State sovereignty that any righting of the ship of our Nation will float or sink. While I hope and pray for the President and his administration I do not think the remedy to the overwhelming problems that we face are not found in executive orders , which I have never fan of. The only remedy is found in the States returning their rightful position and roll in our nation’s life.
I agree that many of these agencies need to get out of the centralized government's hands and give the powers back to the individual states. People fighting against what Trump is trying to do is completely unaware or ignorant enough to know that he is not abolishing said rights, but letting the states make their own laws as it should be.
I agree. I had promised myself, that I would not comment until I had time to digest what I read. Because of my hasty nature and my mind working faster than my thumbs, I left some words again. I have thought on this issue a lot and was moved by your writing.I currently in contact with Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita. I’ve sent him documentation of the crimes committed against the people of Indiana by the federal government ie Anthony Fauci and requesting that prosecute him under state law since sleep Joe pardoned him. My son was killed by the Fauci protocols. I’m not revenge but I am seeking justice. If justice is not served now, it will come From the Good God , who made us all. I’ve re resolved to buy a computer, so can type on a larger keyboard. Thanks again for your research, thinking writing .
stronger . It was understandable what happened with his family but not too much fun. Thanks for your friendship. The flowers and the redbuds are blooming and I have spent the week in the garden. Life is good no matter what it throws at us. I think of Tevia from Fiddler On The Roof at times , when he looks up to God and says “ what mischief to have for your friend today?” Thanks and God bless
Thanks Monica., The 6 weeks he we was in the hospital we were not allowed to have any input or see him. We were othered by his wife and children because we were not jabbed. No funeral for my artist best friend and my friend. I know I share to much. It’s therapeutic to let it out.
I believe the people of the South had no choice than to secede with the high tariffs purposely imposed on the South, the South was thriving in agriculture and had commodities the world wanted, and the Union wanted it all. The war was based on politics and when they threw in the slavery issue it only divided the country further. I believe they didn't want secession, but needed to secede to survive.
Excellent dissertation. The circumstances surrounding The war of Northern Aggression are still very much alive today, but instead of the issue being the Northern States and Federal Government insisting on how the sovereign Southern States should conduct their affairs, we have the Liberal Blue States and the permanent Federal Government bureaucracy attempting to force their ways on how the Conservative Red States conduct their affairs. The result being the same, a usurpation of the sovereign Conservative Red States and their respective peoples’ sovereign Constitutional rights. I have no allegiance to the Liberal Blue States or their peoples and would not lift a finger if they were in need. I support my state joining with other like minded states to wash our hands of states and peoples who subscribe to a philosophical system of governance that I reject and find offensive; no different than the population of the Southern States rejected the philosophical system of governance forced on them by the Northern States and Federal Government during the war of Northern Aggression. I would hope it would be peaceful through a national divorce but the very philosophy I reject of the Liberal Blue States is one of force exerted against those who reject their views. Accordingly, I recognize that divorces can be nasty and am willing to fight for my Constitutional rights not to be dictated to by governments and peoples I reject.
Forgive the length of my reply. This subject stirs in me not just deep conviction, but a profound sense of historical clarity.
Your article rightly asserts that Southern secession in 1861 was rooted in constitutional principle. But what you present—artfully, and perhaps cautiously—as a bold and controversial opinion is, in truth, a legal and historical reality. One that has been systematically buried beneath generations of political mythology and moral oversimplification.
Let’s be clear: The Southern states had every right—legal, constitutional, historical, and moral—to withdraw from the Union. The argument against their right was not rooted in law. It was rooted in politics. And Lincoln’s refusal to recognize that right was not a defense of constitutional order. It was the violent denial of it. As I've grown more knowledgeable throughout my life, perhaps nothing has tainted the reputation of Lincoln for me more than his stubborn insistence that the Union was meant to be perpetual.
The Union was formed through the voluntary ratification of the Constitution by sovereign states. It was a compact among equals, not a contract of submission. States like Virginia and New York made this explicit in their ratification documents, reserving the right to resume delegated powers if the federal government became abusive or oppressive.
To claim that states could enter but not leave is to fundamentally rewrite the logic of American self-government. If a people have the right to consent to a union, they necessarily have the right to withdraw that consent. Otherwise, the Union is not a republic. It is a prison.
The federal government derives all its authority from the Constitution. It has no inherent sovereignty. Its powers are enumerated, delegated, and limited. When that delegation is abused, when the government ceases to represent the interests of its constituent states, those states have the right to reclaim their original sovereignty.
This is not radical. It is foundational.
The Tenth Amendment, the structure of the Constitution, and the writings of the Founders all affirm this principle. Secession was not rebellion. It was a lawful, reasoned, and democratic assertion of political independence. It was no different in principle from the American colonies separating from Britain.
Lincoln’s claim that the Union was perpetual had no basis in the Constitution. It was his own interpretation, formed out of political necessity, not constitutional truth. The courts had never ruled on secession. Congress had never outlawed it. And no clause in the Constitution prohibits a state from withdrawing.
So when Lincoln sent troops to suppress secession, he was not enforcing the law. He was declaring war on a political doctrine he disagreed with.
He chose force over dialogue. He chose invasion over negotiation.
And in doing so, he shattered the very constitutional order he claimed to be preserving.
In the article, you gesture toward the legality of secession but then back away from the moral implications of what followed. I understand why you did so.
But, as a commentor and not the author, I will say it plainly: the war waged against the South was not only unconstitutional, it was unjust.
The South seceded peacefully, through legislative conventions, popular votes, and official declarations. It asked to be left alone. It formed a new government, sent emissaries to Washington, and sought a peaceful separation.
Lincoln refused. He initiated war to prevent it.
He did not act to “preserve the Union” so much as to preserve federal control over a region that had chosen, by every right, to govern itself. In doing so, he sanctioned a war that killed three-quarters of a million Americans and permanently redefined the relationship between the states and the federal government—not through consent, but through conquest.
Let us not confuse historical revisionism with fact. Lincoln himself said repeatedly that the war was not about ending slavery. In his letter to Horace Greeley, he said if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do it. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t apply to slave states that remained in the Union.
The war was about power—centralized federal power versus state sovereignty. Slavery was a factor, yes, but not the cause of war. It became the moral banner only after the fact, used to justify the bloodshed and recast Lincoln as a messianic liberator instead of a constitutional aggressor.
The Southern states did not secede because they hated the Union. They seceded because the Union had ceased to respect their rights. Tariff policy bled their economy. Radical Republicans made clear that their institutions and way of life were under siege. And Lincoln’s election, without a single electoral vote from the South, made one thing unmistakable: the South had lost all political leverage within the system.
The Southern states chose independence over submission. They chose self-government over domination.
And for that choice, they were invaded, vilified, and nearly destroyed.
You end the article by invoking a hope that young Southerners remember the legal basis of secession. On that, we agree. But I would argue that we must go further.
They must also be taught that the war waged against that right was neither noble nor necessary. It was the death knell of the republic the Founders envisioned—a republic of consent, restraint, and limited power.
Secession was not a failure of American principles. It was their final defense.
And in crushing it, Lincoln and the post-war federal government replaced a constitutional Union with an indivisible empire.
The South was right. Constitutionally. Morally. Historically.
Those of us who say the South was right are often dismissed or denounced—but the arguments stand, plain and unflinching, for anyone willing to confront the facts. Yes, slavery casts a long shadow. And rightly so. It was a moral failing—not only of the South, but of the entire Union, North included, which protected, permitted, and profited from it for decades. What we now condemn was then legal, constitutional, and embedded across the American landscape.
But we must be clear: the war was not waged to end slavery. It was waged to prevent secession. Lincoln said as much—again and again. His letters, his policies, his own words make that undeniable. The Emancipation Proclamation itself carved out exceptions for Union-held slave states, proving it was a political tactic, not a moral crusade.
Remove slavery from the equation—as Lincoln himself often did—and what remains is a constitutional crisis, resolved not by law or debate, but by invasion and conquest.
Once that truth is recognized, one conclusion becomes inescapable: the South was right—constitutionally, philosophically, and historically. Lincoln was wrong—not merely in execution, but in principle. And the nation he forged from the wreckage of that war bears little resemblance to the republic the Founders envisioned: a Union of consent, not coercion.
Thank you, Jason, for adding additional information to this post. It is very much appreciated and welcomed!
Monica, I was on a late night writing spree when I wrote my overly long and mostly unnecessary comment. I appreciate your courtesy. But I do apologize if I stepped on your toes at all. That was not my intention.
I add this now because I just reread what I wrote. There are points where it seems I'm pushing back against what you wrote and that is not what I intended at all. I think and I hope that you know that is true, but I wanted to clearly say so.
I think your series of articles have been fantastic. This one might have been the best of the bunch. I do realize that many or most of the points I made in my comment you have made in your articles.
My comment was partly for the benefit of other readers but mostly because your article stirred up my passion for the subject and I needed to write the words down!
Keep up the fantastic work!
Jason, I took no offense in your reply. Like I mentioned to a previous subscriber in this thread, that I will continue to research more on the subject because of the common interest of the subject.
I was able to bid on many items during a dream auction of Civil War era recently, of which I won numerous books and newspapers printed during the war years and shortly thereafter. The books which I was enormously out-bidded on was about secession, Jefferson Davis, including original pages from his diary while he was imprisoned, and books about the prisons of the war, as well as a very extensive collection of Harper’s Weekly originals. But, to my great surprise, I did find out who purchased them, and the private library where they are stored, which so happens to be at the Confederate Museum, and my favorite place to research.
The is no describing the feeling I get when I hold an original piece of history in my hands. The descendants of the Sons of Confederate Veterans who run the museum have become my friends, and the respect I have for each and every one of them is very much reciprocated. I have been blessed to be acquainted with these gentile and knowledgeable men whose ancestors became a part of Southern history, and were the original signers of the Ordinance of Secession, in Abbeville, SC. I was also honored when the branch president presented me with my “Green Card,” a few years back, it was then when I knew, South Carolina was where I belonged.
I'm glad you took it the way I intended. I thought you would but just wanted to make sure. It's easy to lose tone and meaning when writing online!
I can't imagine what I would do if I had access to such materials. I probably wouldn't leave the room for weeks. I haven't had a chance to read your latest article yet but will as soon as possible.
I think I mentioned before that I had, long ago, considered writing a book on the subject of secession. I found some of my notes a while back and they are very much in line with the things you've been writing, especially as far as the points you've made. I've really enjoyed reading your articles!
The war for Independence began and ended in Abbeville, SC. I have more on the subject, but have to put it together.
Excellent addition to the discussion. I admire your elucidation and wish my comment were as elegant. I thank you and Monica’s Dark Corner for your contribution to this subject, one that I hold near and dear to my heart. Thank you both.
Thank you for your most kind reply. It seems the subject of secession is one of interest to many and so, therefore, I will continue to research more on the subject.
Exactly what Samuel A'Court Ashe wrote about in his book, " A Southern View of the Invasion of the Southern States." Excellent comment, sir!
Great work! It is on the back of State sovereignty that any righting of the ship of our Nation will float or sink. While I hope and pray for the President and his administration I do not think the remedy to the overwhelming problems that we face are not found in executive orders , which I have never fan of. The only remedy is found in the States returning their rightful position and roll in our nation’s life.
I agree that many of these agencies need to get out of the centralized government's hands and give the powers back to the individual states. People fighting against what Trump is trying to do is completely unaware or ignorant enough to know that he is not abolishing said rights, but letting the states make their own laws as it should be.
I agree. I had promised myself, that I would not comment until I had time to digest what I read. Because of my hasty nature and my mind working faster than my thumbs, I left some words again. I have thought on this issue a lot and was moved by your writing.I currently in contact with Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita. I’ve sent him documentation of the crimes committed against the people of Indiana by the federal government ie Anthony Fauci and requesting that prosecute him under state law since sleep Joe pardoned him. My son was killed by the Fauci protocols. I’m not revenge but I am seeking justice. If justice is not served now, it will come From the Good God , who made us all. I’ve re resolved to buy a computer, so can type on a larger keyboard. Thanks again for your research, thinking writing .
I want to say how sorry I am you lost your son, Al. I hope you and others who have lost loved ones one day get the satisfaction you deserve. 💔
My wife healed and I came out
stronger . It was understandable what happened with his family but not too much fun. Thanks for your friendship. The flowers and the redbuds are blooming and I have spent the week in the garden. Life is good no matter what it throws at us. I think of Tevia from Fiddler On The Roof at times , when he looks up to God and says “ what mischief to have for your friend today?” Thanks and God bless
Thanks Monica., The 6 weeks he we was in the hospital we were not allowed to have any input or see him. We were othered by his wife and children because we were not jabbed. No funeral for my artist best friend and my friend. I know I share to much. It’s therapeutic to let it out.
Yes! When people say it is legal that doesn’t make it right!
I believe the people of the South had no choice than to secede with the high tariffs purposely imposed on the South, the South was thriving in agriculture and had commodities the world wanted, and the Union wanted it all. The war was based on politics and when they threw in the slavery issue it only divided the country further. I believe they didn't want secession, but needed to secede to survive.
If you want to argue secession was wrong you have to be willing to say why. What made it wrong?
Excellent dissertation. The circumstances surrounding The war of Northern Aggression are still very much alive today, but instead of the issue being the Northern States and Federal Government insisting on how the sovereign Southern States should conduct their affairs, we have the Liberal Blue States and the permanent Federal Government bureaucracy attempting to force their ways on how the Conservative Red States conduct their affairs. The result being the same, a usurpation of the sovereign Conservative Red States and their respective peoples’ sovereign Constitutional rights. I have no allegiance to the Liberal Blue States or their peoples and would not lift a finger if they were in need. I support my state joining with other like minded states to wash our hands of states and peoples who subscribe to a philosophical system of governance that I reject and find offensive; no different than the population of the Southern States rejected the philosophical system of governance forced on them by the Northern States and Federal Government during the war of Northern Aggression. I would hope it would be peaceful through a national divorce but the very philosophy I reject of the Liberal Blue States is one of force exerted against those who reject their views. Accordingly, I recognize that divorces can be nasty and am willing to fight for my Constitutional rights not to be dictated to by governments and peoples I reject.
This is a wonderful comment! Thank you!