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

[Tattila the Hun]

I think they had the right to secede, until Federal Gov took away that right.

[Arrian]

Poor marks from my regarding the founder's decision to not specifically address the issue of secession, btw. There's no way that was simple oversight. They must have deliberately chosen to remain silent on the issue. Given that they'd just fought a war of independence... yeesh, guys, whaddya doin' ?

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

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

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It was... and they failed.

Are you saying that military force is the only way a state should exercise the right of secession?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Why do you assume this is a right? Furthermore, is the theoretical existance of this right relevant if it can not be exercised.

What part of the Tenth Amendment do you not understand?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian
I actually think that states do (or did, anyway) have the right to seceed from the Union. Exactly how to do it is another matter... and obviously firing on Ft. Sumter gave Lincoln the pretext he needed to use troops to put down the rebellion.

That's an entirely seperate issue from the arguments we've had regarding whether or not slavery was the primary driver of secession, and regarding the original and uses of the Confed Battle Flag (or whatever it's proper name is).

-Arrian

Yes. Let's keep the debate focused on the right of secession. I'm glad to see we agree of that, at least.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I'm not sure I'd say the right to sucession is implied rather than simply not addressed, much in the same way many issues in the US are, leading to rediculous arguments about what the Founding Fathers would think.

Surely if they had intended the Union to be permanent and indissoluble, they would have put that in the Constitution. The right of secession goes along with the whole ideal of power remaining in the hands of the people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Originally posted by Caligastia
Are you saying that military force is the only way a state should exercise the right of secession?

That generally is the way these things work.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Arrian
Poor marks from my regarding the founder's decision to not specifically address the issue of secession, btw. There's no way that was simple oversight. They must have deliberately chosen to remain silent on the issue. Given that they'd just fought a war of independence... yeesh, guys, whaddya doin' ?

-Arrian

Maybe they didn't want it to happen

Are you saying that military force is the only way a state should exercise the right of secession?

I'm saying that I don't recognize it as a right.

What part of the Tenth Amendment do you not understand?

The part where you make up rights and attribute them to states.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian
Poor marks from my regarding the founder's decision to not specifically address the issue of secession, btw. There's no way that was simple oversight. They must have deliberately chosen to remain silent on the issue. Given that they'd just fought a war of independence... yeesh, guys, whaddya doin' ?

-Arrian

Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts wrote the following in his 1899 biography of the famous nationalist Daniel Webster:

When the Constitution was adopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of States in popular conventions, it is safe to say there was no man in this country, from Washington and Hamilton on the one side to George Clinton and George Mason on the other, who regarded our system of Government, when first adopted, as anything but an experiment entered upon by the States, and from which each and every State had the right to peaceably withdraw, a right which was very likely to be exercised. (Henry Cabot Lodge, Daniel Webster, Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1899, p. 176)

Union general Thomas Ewing acknowledged that the founding fathers did not address the issue of secession in the Constitution--he believed the war settled the question:

The North . . . recognizes the fact that the proximate cause of the war was the constitutional question of the right of secession -- a question which, until it was settled by the war, had neither a right side nor a wrong side to it. Our forefathers in framing the Constitution purposely left the question unsettled; to have settled it distinctly in the Constitution would have been to prevent the formation of the Union of the thirteen States. They, therefore, committed that question to the future. . . . (Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 31, 1903, p. 89)

[Caligastia]

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

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


That generally is the way these things work.

True, freedom must often be fought for, but surely that shouldn't prohibit attempts through peaceful means?

[SlowwHand]

If state's had nor have rights, there would be no state laws.

[Arrian]

Our forefathers in framing the Constitution purposely left the question unsettled; to have settled it distinctly in the Constitution would have been to prevent the formation of the Union of the thirteen States. They, therefore, committed that question to the future

True that the Union would never have been had secession been expressly forbidden. But what if it had been expressly allowed?

-Arrian

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
I'm saying that I don't recognize it as a right.

So no group of people that decide to join a larger group should ever be allowed to peacefully separate?

The part where you make up rights and attribute them to states.

All pretty much covers it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The North . . . recognizes the fact that the proximate cause of the war was the constitutional question of the right of secession -- a question which, until it was settled by the war, had neither a right side nor a wrong side to it. Our forefathers in framing the Constitution purposely left the question unsettled; to have settled it distinctly in the Constitution would have been to prevent the formation of the Union of the thirteen States. They, therefore, committed that question to the future. . . . (Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 31, 1903, p. 89)

Actually that may have indeed been the case. Many arguments in the Constitutional Convention were punted to be decided later. Slavery was one of them (the most famous and most talked about at the convention).

The Constitution was an attempt for a stronger federal government compared to the Articles of Confederation where the states basically acted like individual countries anyway. I can see where some founders would have considered such a thing to forbid secession, while others would have taken the other side. Intent is always interesting, but I don't think there is a sufficient answer there.

You can either think it is allowable because of lack of textual exhortation against it, or not allowable as being implied by the text, or something else entirely (according to contract law, you can leave a contractual relationship, but have to pay damages).

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Arrian


True that the Union would never have been had secession been expressly forbidden. But what if it had been expressly allowed?

-Arrian

It couldn't have done any harm I suppose, but I guess it was one of those things that they thought of as a no-brainer - that states could leave if they wanted to.