No one burned down Kentucky for sticking with the Union!

And? That's hardly relevant to Lee's decision. The Union asked him to go to war with Virginia i.e. burn down his home.

Would Virginia have seceded at all if Lee stayed with Lincoln?

As a southerner, its honestly pretty simple. The people of the South fought one truly great war as the South. The fact that it was a war fundamentally for slavery, is an aspect of the culture and specific history of Southerners, and obviously colors the controversy, but is mostly immaterial to the why.

Southerners, like all people, fondly remember the time when they were at the most powerful, their most ascendant, their most energetic. All people memorialize their dead, even entire generations when a great war is lost or won, and the nation with it.

The people of the South were slavers, who gave up their mastery not willingly but by fact of force. Whenever a People is cast from their own power, and subsumed to a larger entity, their self-idealization tends to become frozen at the point were they were last in control of their own course and powerful.

Is it treason? Here and now? No. Southerners are not trying to secede, and even the people I know who are the "visible" supporters of the Confederacy, are not even remotely serious about it.

It's distasteful, certainly, for one's culture-heroes to be a generation of slavers pulling their countrymen along to a bloody war to preserve their grotesque way of life, but if that's you're history, that's your culture. Attempting to force or cajole Southerners to give up This aspect of their culture will only prolong the struggle. These heroes can only be replaced by new ones, and unfortunately the South is largely devoid of heroes.

"Would Virginia have seceded at all if Lee stayed with Lincoln?"

Yes. They did.

As it turns out, Lincoln offered Lee command of the army on the day AFTER Virginia seceded. The firing on Fort Sumpter is what changed Virginia's vote from "stay" just 2 weeks earlier to "leave".

@Puddle, if the South wasn't constantly trying to suppress black votes and otherwise keep Blacks down, memorializing their dead would be much less of an issue. It is the combination of the 2 things that offends me -- as if they are trying to "win the peace" having lost the war.

@Hauta, well Southerners are racist, they used to be slavers, what do you expect?

They definitely should not be left alone with their minorities (speaking about the populations as a whole), I'll say that.

As I explained above, Jeff, logic compels the conclusion States may secede as they obviously have the power to secede.

The fact the Constitution does not have any special mechanism for the process is irrelevant. More relevant is the fact that the Constitution has no provision that the federal or central government may prohibit a State from seceding. If the power is not enumerated, then the States have it: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amendment X.

Second, the right to secede is clearly implied by the constant reference to the United States in the plural throughout, 34 times in total, as "these several States." This confirms that the sovereign powers under our form of republican government are the States and we the people. The central government is not the sovereign.

@eturnage, why don't you let the supreme court interpret the constitution? That is their job. I have no doubt they will find what they need to prohibit secession. Maybe the "necessary and proper" clause.

@Hauta, individuals are allowed to have their own readings and interpretations of the Constitution, they just don't have legal weight. Texas v White occurred during Reconstriction, so it was never going to go any other way.

@eturnage, but at the exact same time, lacking a unified and consistent process that states can follow in the Constitution to secede, the federal government will have an easy excuse to view the secession as illegitimate.

@Prado, the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Texas v White was that the Articles of Confederation literally called for a *perpetual* Union and that the Constitution was designed to strengthen that Union. So in response to @eturnage, the right to secede is given away from the state to the federal government upon admission to the Union. I can't see this decision going any other way today or anytime after the Civil War.

technically any powers not expressed specifically for the federal government, are handed to the states. so wouldn't that mean technically each state has the legal right to secede?

The problem with secession is the realization that overall sure it hurts the strength of the country but its far worse for the state. As soon as they revoke membership their citizens lose: social security, medicare, federal funding for schools, disaster relief, farm subsidy, airport security, drug enfircement, jails/prisons and so much more. Its political suicide for any states other than texas - cali - or maybe florida.

Alternatively I could see alaska being okay with little govt aid

Calling for a PERPETUAL Union IS an express transfer of power.

@Puddle

you do realize that a small fraction of the people in the south ACTUALLY owned slaves: correct? the racism was usually indirect, as it would be people in the lowest socioeconomic class, while still being "above" slavery, who had nothing better to do than to shout down upon slaves. Others sympathized, but neither group had any actual control on slavery.

Then you also have another demographic in the mountainous areas of the south, where there was virtually no slavery, and little state control. here we see MANY accounts of slaves escaping to, and not even continuing north to the union. these places even supported the Union during the war.

to paint every southerner as a racist, and every northerner as a non-racist is very flawed. racism was deeply ingrained in the culture, the problem being addressed was the abolition of slavery.

you had openly racist men in the north still saying that there was no right to slavery for the south, and people in the south who denounced slavery in the south who still fought for the confederacy.

it's a really interesting time in our history, that requires a lot more research and insight. the problem is that there wasn't a true dichotomy between the north and the south in terms of culture.

@Hauta

but we have the Supremacy clause, so the articles, when conflicting with the constitution, become void.

If a state like West Virginia decided to secede what would really happen?
Theyd be completely fucked - totally land locked by a country they just left on all sides. They could maybe survive mining coal but selling it to who? And how? All america would need to do is build a wall around them like were doing to mexico and say oh... yea its a no fly zone around and in all ways to get there too.

And boom
Desire to secede gone

@Yanik, where's the conflict? The right to secede was already given away. 10th Amendment merely prevented transfer of any additional rights. Further, check out this link:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nakrnsm/26169011284

It awesomely describes why this confederate monument was erected. Very much is said about preserving slavery and very little about the lives lost.

The preamble of the Comstitution doesn't actually hold legal weight, Hauta.

Why not? Anything that gives context to the text can be used by the Supreme Court. Texas v White is the law of the land and has not been reversed. Accordingly, the constitution is currently still written to prohibit secession. Maybe one day that decision will be reversed. Until then, no secession is EXACTLY what the constitution says (or necessarily implies).

Giving context to the document doesn't mean that it prescribes or denies specific rights to or from the states.

Context is used to interpret the text. It's the way laws are interpreted. Check with a lawyer.

@Hauta, of course the courts of the central government would rule States have no right to secede. The US Supreme Court is part of the federal government. It naturally aligns with central authority. The SCOTUS has been f'ed up since Marshall wrote Marbury v Madison.

@eturnage, interesting take but bear in mind that the states could always amend the constitution to take the power back.

And should, in this case. But that'll be a while.