Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a lawyer but am not giving legal advice. When a document purports to be comprehensive one really has to look for permissive language in this case. In other words when there is specific language allowing entry, one should look, in this case in vain, to find language allowing withdrawal. And in its absence, you would look to an analog to the langauge allowing admission, i.e., Congressional approval.
Most fundamentally, constituting a government is just different than forming a commercial contract.
I think that you are correct that the closest analogue to secession is State admission.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Argentina and the Falklands War.
The Argentine military junta initially sent in a lot of poorly-equipped and under-trained kids to occupy the Falklands, the invasion being an attempt to get popular support at home. They thought the US would try to act as mediators, they didn't think the British were strong enough militarily to pose a threat (big defence cuts were in progress in the UK around that time), and many of the occupying Argentine soldiers were genuinely shocked to find that the islanders didn't want to be 'liberated' from the British.
Not so much the country or its people being delusional for starting the conflict, more the stupidity of the ruling generals.
True, there's no explicit mention of an exit procedure in the Constitution, but there's also no language in the Constitution prohibiting an exit. The idea of secession was eventually only tried by the South, but it certainly was not just in the South that the idea that secession might be legal was considered. The first mention of it was during the run up to the War of 1812, for example. In this case, it was the New England states that threatened secession if the US declared war on Britain. Ultimately, they decided against it, but it is certainly clear that the political leaders of that period in New England certainly did not think secession was illegal.
As for what would have happened had Sumter not been fired upon, I do think that tensions at the time were such that war would have eventually broken out somewhere. It probably was inevitable. I just think it's interesting to consider Lincoln's options had the South maintained their stance that "All we want is to be left alone", and not provoked armed conflict. I am not sure that Lincoln could have simply sent in soldiers and started shooting. The political situation in the border states was very precarious and initiating the conflict would have cost Lincoln the border states of Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. Of these Maryland and Kentucky were the keys. Maryland is obvious since the secession of Maryland would have left the Federal capital surrounded by enemy territory. Lincoln's first action of the war likely would have had to have been evacuating Washington for some safe haven farther north. Considering that one of the big issues was foreign recognition of the Confederacy, that would have had wide diplomatic repercussions, and quite possibly led to British and French recognition of the independence of the Confederacy. That would in turn possibly have at least partially negated the North's advantage in industrial production as the South could have obtained needed items from foreign allies.
Kentucky is less obvious, but the real war was fought in the West over control of the Mississippi. Kentucky as a Confederate state would have pushed the front line further north and made the Federal attacks on the Mississippi much more difficult. Certainly capturing Nashville and western Tennessee would have been much more problematic. Supply lines might have become a problem for the Union troops in the western theater. In the actual conflict, supply lines were stretched and difficult to protect from Confederate raiders like Forrest. Extending them further north into Ohio or Indiana might well have made supply of Grant's troops in the west impossible.
Numbers were slightly off on my previous post. There were 15 slave states. Abolition prior to the civil war would have required a constitutional amendment. This requires ratification by 3/4ths of states, so 15 states would be adequate to block an amendment even today. Also pro-slavery Democrats had majorities in both US house and senate; just getting through stage one of the process requires a 2/3rds majority in both house and senate.
Secession and going to war made the fugitive slave act a dead letter, ceded the territories to the North, and set up the one scenario by which abolition could be attained.
What are examples of a country voluntarily declaring war expecting victory (so omit, Denmark 1940 etc.) and ended up being total disasters.
I nominate Romania, 1916. In August they Declared War on the Central Powers, the plan was to hold off Bulgaria and basically shatter the Austro-Hungarian Empire with a swift blow and end the war. Instead by November, all but a tiny bit of the Northeast of their Country was overrun and the Russians were the only reason they had that much, and the army was crushed and about 80% of the country was occupied Almost 700,000 Romanians died so they took proportionally similar losses to the great powers in less than 1/2 the time (surrendered a couple days after Russia in Dec. 1917)
And Romania ended up increasing its size by acquiring Transylvania, originally held by Hungaria.
Numbers were slightly off on my previous post. There were 15 slave states. Abolition prior to the civil war would have required a constitutional amendment. This requires ratification by 3/4ths of states, so 15 states would be adequate to block an amendment even today. Also pro-slavery Democrats had majorities in both US house and senate; just getting through stage one of the process requires a 2/3rds majority in both house and senate.
Secession and going to war made the fugitive slave act a dead letter, ceded the territories to the North, and set up the one scenario by which abolition could be attained.
I wonder why when both houses of Congress were pro-slavery they didn't simply divide the slave states into as many new states, in cooperation with the existing states and under the provisions of the Constitution, as they needed and then simply legislate whatever they wanted, including secession?
3rd Reich and WW2.
They planned to finish war in 2 months.
By December 1941 it was already understood by higher military command that war was already lost. from that on, it was painful drag into complete defeat.
I am saying this as sure, there are smaller and likely more stupid military escapades attempted and failed. But OP asked for MOST. German naivete to win it against USSR though was at cost of around 30-40 000 000 lives lost. That's as most as it goes.
I have to agree in the strongest terms. This was sheer madness and the German High Command knew before they even started. The General Staff / logisticians clearly calculated and stated that invasion of the S.U. would go as following:
2 months of rapid advance 500 miles
2 months of waiting for the logistics to follow
2 months of advancing another 500 miles
2 month of waiting for logistics (-> this is where they got stuck before Moscow and without any proper supplies of any kind in the face of the Red Army counterattack and cold winter conditions)
The main issue was the Soviet railroads used different gauge so they had to lay new tracks along the whole way. Additionally, poor roads and destructions. This is pretty much how it played out in reality. Then you also have to add months of muddy and wintery conditions not suitable for mobile warfare.
I have to agree in the strongest terms. This was sheer madness and the German High Command knew before they even started. The General Staff / logisticians clearly calculated and stated that invasion of the S.U. would go as following:
2 months of rapid advance 500 miles
2 months of waiting for the logistics to follow
2 months of advancing another 500 miles
2 month of waiting for logistics (-> this is where they got stuck before Moscow and without any proper supplies of any kind in the face of the Red Army counterattack and cold winter conditions)
The main issue was the Soviet railroads used different gauge so they had to lay new tracks along the whole way. Additionally, poor roads and destructions. This is pretty much how it played out in reality. Then you also have to add months of muddy and wintery conditions not suitable for mobile warfare.
So what were they thinking??? I don't get it.
Probably thinking Russia would tear itself apart again like in 1917 once it got heavily pressured.
And Romania ended up increasing its size by acquiring Transylvania, originally held by Hungaria.
Austria Hungrary would have collapsed regardless and the Western Allies were really interested in weakening the core states of AH, in fact the windfall of grain and oil from Romanias quick. Surrender kept the Germans and Austrians in the war for about and extra year.
That and they did it despite Russia actively piping it because it lengthened the Eastern Front.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
