“Some state conventions rejected secession, then voted for it.”
So what? A vote requires a majority to pass. You can’t claim a “small minority” passed secession when they got a majority to vote for it. That’s inane.
“At least one state was supposed to have a referendum on secession and didn’t.”
“Supposed to” according to who? Secession was not a legally defined process, so there was no precedent about how it was “supposed to” happen, save perhaps the American Revolution, which was initiated by legislatures and not referendums.
I didn't say that only a small minority favored secession. I said that secession going through had much to do with tactics and timing, propaganda and panic. It wasn't the overwhelming "will of the people" but a product of circumstances and events.
In the South in 1860, there were some who wanted secession and had wanted it for some time. There were others who wanted secession after Lincoln was elected. Then there was a critical group that didn't really want secession, but went along with the vote and didn't oppose it.
Lincoln and others in the North assumed that they were unionist and anti-secession. They weren't, and once the war got started they weren't going to take the "Northern" side. Still, it was a natural assumption for those who cared about the union to make.
BTW, if we count the slaves and what they may have wanted, maybe secession really was only the choice of a small minority in some states.
Secession was not a legally defined process, so there was no precedent about how it was “supposed to” happen, save perhaps the American Revolution, which was initiated by legislatures and not referendums.
Exactly. Since there was "no legally defined process" it was open to question whether any given vote was a legitimate act of secession. If there was "no legally defined process" secession looked a lot like revolution.
If a state convention -- and it was conventions in some states that voted on secession resolutions -- rejected secession one hundred times, secession was still an open question, but if it voted for secession once, the secession was a done deal.
Or I guess it was -- since there was no constitutional procedure for secession. Was it fair that all those earlier (and possible later) votes counted for nothing? Did one vote of one body at one time speak for the whole state?
If a state convention promised to hold a popular vote referendum on secession but didn't -- as happened in Arkansas -- if it broke its promise and the rules it pledged itself to be bound by, then in what sense was the secession legitimate? Could they really change their own rules halfway through the process and claim that it was legitimately completed?
You need a 2/3 vote of Congress to amend the Constitution (plus ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures). Can a state really break all ties with the union because of one simple majority vote of one body at one time? That goes against the spirit of checks and balances in the Constitution.