State's Rights: Did States created after the Constitution have the same rights and legal status?

From an letter to the editor/comment in the Montgomery AL Advisor

"On the 150th anniversary of secession, the question of its legality becomes a matter of interest again. In my opinion as a historian, of the states that declared secession, only Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas have a case, because of all the Confederate states, only those five were independent before they joined the Union.

Since they voluntarily joined the Union, perhaps they could voluntarily also leave the Union. All of the other Confederate states, including Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, Arkansas and Louisiana, were not independent before they joined the Union.

They were federal territories before they were states. Having been created out of federal territory, they had less legal right to secede from the Union that created them. Most of the states that declared secession in 1860-1861 did not have the legal right to do so."

Daniel L. Haulman
Montgomery

--------------------------------------

I disagree.  The fault in the thinking is assuming that the word "federal" in "federal territory" means "national" or common to all.  The United States was not a singular national political entity until after 1865, and only became so through force of arms.  

By the Constitution, the states that founded the Union set the process by which new states could be created and admitted to the Union.  Those territories were created by the legislative branch as authorized under Article IV, Section 3.  


Before Statehood, the territory must hold a referendum, demonstrating through popular sovereignty, that the joining with the Union is the will of a majority of inhabitants able to vote.    

Every state admitted to the Union held a ratification convention or held a referendum, and voluntarily joined the Union.  The later states became cosignatories to a preexisting contract between equal sovereign political entities.  


If the process is reversed, as in 1860-61, a state holds a people's convention to discuss secession, and if the eventual vote is for secession, then the people of that state, as sovereigns, voluntarily and peacefully withdraw from the Union.

The language of "perpetual" union in the Articles of Confederation, and "a more perfect" union in the Constitution is often cited by nationalists to indicate that the Union was permanent (and by implication, involuntary).  


"Perpetual" only means indefinite, or without any defined timeframe.  "Perpetual" and "more perfect Union" say nothing about voluntary or involuntary nature of the compact between states.

The whole national theory falls apart with a look at the text of the Constitution and its ratification.  Article VII of the Constitution only calls for 9 States to ratify the Constitution to create a new Union.  


Not all 13.   


If 9 ratify, only 9 join.  The other States are in no way obligated to join the Union.  Only 11 of the 13 states ratified the Constitution initially.  


North Carolina was an independent sovereign nation, that is, not one of the United States, between New York's ratification in July 1788, and North Carolina's ratification in November 1789.  The coexistence was peaceful.  There was no military strife.  There was no coercion from the neigboring "united" States.  


Rhode Island was likewise independent until May 1790.  


The timeline of the formation of the 13 State Union is today not clear to even those with a decent knowledge of history.  

The point?  A "nation" was not founded in 1788.  A "federation" of States was created.  Every state or territory voluntarily joined the Union.  Normative contract law, known to attorneys and legislators at local, state, and federal law, indicates that voluntary contracts and compacts between equal parties can be dissolved or changed by voluntary withdrawl by one of the parties (unless otherwise specified and agreed to by such party in the contract).


In Summary:

Each new state was equal in legal standing to the original ratifying states.  


Each State joined the Union voluntarily, through defined process.


No specific clause of the Constitution speaks to illegality of secession, only that the timeframe of the compact between states is indefinite.


The Constitution between the States is like a contract between legally equal entities.  


Therefore, normative English and American contract law allows secession of a State from the Union.


Quod erat demonstrandum.

Jefferson Davis Illustrates original relationships of the States

This is a passage from The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis. Here he describes the period between the 
ratification of the Constitution by 11 of the 13 States, when Rhode Island and North Carolina remained independent nations. The purpose of this passage and letter between the Governor of Rhode Island and 
President George Washington was to demonstrate how individual States did in fact consider themselves sovereign and independent at the time of the Ratification, and the Nationalist school of the founding of the country was a later distortion, and that the compact theory of the formation of the United States is most valid:

Jefferson Davis, 1808-1889

It is particularly to be noted that, during the intervals between the 
organization of the Federal Government under the new Constitution and the 
ratification of that Constitution by, North Carolina and Rhode Island, 
respectively, those States were absolutely independent and unconnected with any 
other political community, unless they be considered as still representing the 
"United States of America," which by the Articles of Confederation had been 
declared a "perpetual union." The other States had seceded from the former 
union—not in a body, but separately, each for itself—and had formed a new 
association, leaving these two States in the attitude of foreign though friendly 
powers. There was no claim of any right to control their action, as if they had 
been mere geographical or political divisions of one great consolidated 
community or "nation." Their accession to the Union was desired, but their 
freedom of choice in the matter was never questioned. And then it is to be 
noted, on their part, that, like the house of Judah, they refrained from any 
attempt to force the seceding sisters to return.

As illustrative of the relations existing during this period between the United 
States and Rhode Island, it may not be uninstructive to refer to a letter sent 
by the government of the latter to the President and Congress, and transmitted 
by the President to the Senate, with the following note:

"United States, September 26, 1789.

"Gentlemen of the Senate: Having yesterday received a letter written in this 
month by the Governor of Rhode Island, at the request and in behalf of the 
General Assembly of that State, addressed to the President, the Senate, and the 
House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress 
assembled, I take the earliest opportunity of laying a copy of it before you.

(Signed) "GEORGE WASHINGTON."

Some extracts from the communication referred to are annexed:

"State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, In General Assembly, 
September Session, 1789.

"To the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the eleven 
United States of America in Congress assembled:

"The critical situation in which the people of this State are placed engages us 
to make these assurances, on their behalf, of their attachment and friendship to 
their sister States, and of their disposition to cultivate mutual harmony and 
friendly intercourse. They know themselves to be a handful, comparatively 
viewed, and, although they now stand as it were alone, they have not separated 
themselves or departed from the principles of that Confederation, which was 
formed by the sister States in their struggle for freedom and in the hour of 
danger....

"Our not having acceded to or adopted the new system of government formed and 
adopted by most of our sister States, we doubt not, has given uneasiness to 
them. That we have not seen our way clear to it, consistently with our idea of 
the principles upon which we all embarked together, has also given pain to us. 
We have not doubted that we might thereby
 avoid present difficulties, but we have apprehended future mischief....

"Can it be thought strange that, with these impressions, they [the people of 
this State] should wait to see the proposed system organized and in 
operation?—to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and 
established by way of amendments, before they could adopt it as a Constitution 
of government for themselves and their posterity?...
"We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners 
having no particular affinity or connection with the United States; but that 
trade and commerce, upon which the prosperity of this State much depends, will 
be preserved as free and open between this State and the United States, as our 
different situations at present can possibly admit....

"We feel ourselves attached by the strongest ties of friendship, kindred, and 
interest, to our sister States; and we can not, without the greatest reluctance, 
look to any other quarter for those advantages of commercial intercourse which 
we conceive to be more natural and reciprocal between them and us.

"I am, at the request and in behalf of the General Assembly, your most obedient, 
humble servant.

(Signed) "John Collins, Governor.