Joey Guanzon

Professor Halford
History 1700
23 October 2015
A Legal Secession?
By the time Abraham Lincoln became the 16th President of the United States of America,
the young country had begun to fracture over the topic of slavery. A sectional divide had divided
the country between the pro slavery South and abolitionist North. Each side had justifications for
their positions rooted in religion, economy, expansion, and politics. President Lincoln was
elected after running on a platform position which was opposed to slavery. In his First Inaugural
Address he explains, I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of
slavery in the States where it exists (Lincoln). In the speech, Lincoln also addresses his
opposition on the topic of secession. Frederick Grimk was a former state Supreme Court Justice
in Ohio. After his resignation from the court, he wrote The Nature and Tendency of Free
Institutions, and in it he discussed what he viewed as the Constitutional case in favor of a States
right to secede from the Union. The determination of slavery being right or wrong has long been
settled, but we will examine the differences between the two positions on secession.
The Southern states economy was based on plantation grown tobacco and cotton. Slave
labor was more economical for the plantation owner than free labor, and therefore the most
logical in terms of financial gain. With roots two centuries deep, slavery was not going to be
stopped easily. The expansion of slavery into the Western territories would ensure the
continuation of this labor force. Slavery expansion would also help secure a political advantage
if there wound up being more pro slavery states.

The Northern states economy was rooted more in manufacturing and banking. Expansion
west could allow this type of industry to move as well. The North used free labor, or non-slave
labor. The introduction of free labor in the West would allow for a political advantage for those
loyal to the North.
While Frederick Grimk had two famous abolitionist sisters, he believed that slavery was
a necessary form of guardianship (Grimk). In his book The Nature and Tendency of Free
Institutions, he writes, The states were not unanimous in the change which substituted another
ordinance and converted the government into the present confederation. Rhode Island and North
Carolina rejected the scheme and may have remained out of the Union to the present day. Eleven
states thus seceded from the old confederation. (Grimk). In this passage, he is justifying a state
or group of states from seceding because in his view, it already happened, and nothing in the
Constitution prevents it from happening again.
The argument Grimk made was not unlike one still being used to this day. It is and
argument of a states rights. Like states rights advocates today, the argument presented by
Grimk centered on what powers the Constitution provided to the Federal Government and what
power remained with the states. The 10th amendment, which states that any powers the federal
government possesses are delegated to it by the Constitution and all remaining powers are
reserved for the states, was a likely cornerstone of his rationale for secession.
In Lincolns First Inaugural Address, he conveyed a message to confirm the anti-slavery
position on which he ran his campaign, while also trying to calm Southern cries for secession. He
did speak about the lack of specificity in the Constitution regarding slavery when he said, May
Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must
Congress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. (Lincoln). It

is also worth noting that the Constitution does not mention specifically mention slavery. (Foner
205). One tenet of Lincolns argument against secession was that the Constitution was a contract;
and while one party may break it, it would require the acceptance of all to nullify it (Lincoln). He
also issued a warning of sorts, suggesting that if a group of states seceded, they would have no
standing to prevent additional parcels of land from doing the same (interestingly, this is similar to
the argument that Grimk made).
Both Grimk and Lincoln were prominent political figures of their time. They each
argued their case for the ability for a state to secede from the Union, and each had a compelling
argument. In the end, the abolitionists won and secession was thwarted. It is tempting to say that
Lincoln was right; after all, he was right about slavery. But the topic at hand isnt slavery, it is
one of secession. Had the Confederacy won the Civil War, slavery would still be wrong, but the
right of secession could be thought of as a just cause.

Works Cited
Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty!: An American History. New York: W.W. Norton, 2014. Print.
Grimk, Frederick. "The Nature and Tendency of Free Institutions." (1856).
Lincoln, Abraham. "Lincoln's First Inaugural Address." 1861.