U.S. Civil War - Did the South Have the Right to Secede?

[Caligastia]

Those southern states who chose to secede were, and still are, referred to as 'rebels' by those who supported Lincoln's war. It can be argued that the term is unfairly applied, because the seceding states wanted peaceful separation, not war. The term 'rebel' seems to imply that some kind of agreement is being broken, but the right of secession was not addressed in the Constitution, neither was membership in the Union ever intended to be anything other than voluntary. Even Ulysses S. Grant, who commanded the Union armies for much of the Civil War, admitted that the founding fathers would have supported the right of secession:

If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. . . .

If they [the founding fathers] had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers. (The Personal Memoirs Of Ulysses S. Grant, Old Saybrook, Connecticut: Konecky & Konecky, 1992, reprint of original edition, pp. 130-131)

If we look at the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment implies that states have the right to secede:

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.

The constitution does not give the federal government the right to force a state to remain in the Union, therefore, a state has the implied legal right to peacefully withdraw.

[Victor Galis]

South Carolinian troops fire on Fort Sumter. The southern states had no problem with firing the first shot.

[Caligastia]

That's a whole other argument. The topic of this thread is the right to secession.

[Victor Galis]

I would argue that the theoretical right does not exist if it can not be exercised.

[SlowwHand]

Cal, you're wasting your time on this.
I happen to agree with you, but then, I'm from a rebel state.


Guarantee you that a self-proclaimed expert is going to sashay in here, and despite every single referenced fact you show, it will be ignored.


I'm not going down this road again.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
I would argue that the theoretical right does not exist if it can not be exercised.

So peaceful, democratic separation should not occur unless you have the military might to back it up?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Caligastia


So peaceful, democratic separation should not occur unless you have the military might to back it up?

If the government does not recognize a right, it doesn't exist. To claim otherwise is to claim that Soviet citizens enjoyed a great many rights.

That being said, I generally do not support separatist movements anywhere as a matter of principle.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Cal, you're wasting your time on this.
I happen to agree with you, but then, I'm from a rebel state.


Guarantee you that a self-proclaimed expert is going to sashay in here, and despite every single referenced fact you show, it will be ignored.


I'm not going down this road again.

Have there been a lot of other threads on this?

[SlowwHand]

A certain someone starts threads all the time about Southern bastards.
He'll show up, spitting his theories without reference.
Ignoring any references that substantiate points contrary to his own vast wisom, that are based on nothing at all..

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


If the government does not recognize a right, it doesn't exist. To claim otherwise is to claim that Soviet citizens enjoyed a great many rights.

That being said, I generally do not support separatist movements anywhere as a matter of principle.

The 10th Amendment specifically grants all rights not specified as federal to the states. Surely this includes the right to secede? If you join any organization, should you expect that your membership is permanent if it is not specified as such?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
A certain someone starts threads all the time about Southern bastards.
He'll show up, spiting his theories without reference.
Ignoring any references that substantiate points contrary to his own vast wisom, that are based on nothing at all..

I haven't seen any of that for some reason....

[SlowwHand]

"He" started another one, right after "his" other one topped out at 500.
I ignored it, being the upstanding person I am, and Berz pretty much told him he was an instigator.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Caligastia


The 10th Amendment specifically grants all rights not specified as federal to the states. Surely this includes the right to secede? If you join any organization, should you expect that your membership is permanent if it is not specified as such?

The determination of what consitutes a right under that 10th amendment is something for the Supreme Court to decide. South Carolina could have attempted to take the matter before the court. Instead they fired on Union troops, and essentially elected to a trial by combat

[SlowwHand]

Why didn't the North sue the South then?

[Ninot]

To answer the OP

In short: No

In less short: No, because Lincoln said so.