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

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And I do consider a power to be distinct from a right. Government power is not the same as a right.

Yep that has always been my read. A right is generally reserved for people and is considered a freedom. Right of free speech etc. A power is a given ability to govern and is usually a curtailing of freedoms as it is a governmental function.

Remember the backdrop is that all rights were natural and Creator given and that the constituion represented a granting of powers to the government to provide a functional society.

[Kontiki]

Secession is a two way street. It certainly can be done peacefully if both parties agree to it. Look at Czechoslovakia.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Surely if they had intended the Union to be permanent and indissoluble, they would have put that in the Constitution.

How many issues have popped up along the way that are not expressly covered in the Constituion? Why didn't they clearly outline these?

[Elok]

More seriously (I've been thinking about it), the question to ask should be: did the Constitution, then or even now, set down rules or limits on how other countries are to be treated? The instant the South seceded, even assuming the North took its claim as serious and legitimate instead of just a batch of rebels needing punishment, it was The Confederate States of America. I don't believe there's anything in the Constitution preventing us from invading another country for even the flimsiest of reasons (it hasn't stopped Dubya, if there is).

Even assuming the North took the moral high ground and honored the South's purported right to secede, think of the situation: we'd just lost half of our territory. The Fugitive Slave Acts and other conciliatory measures would presumptively be revoked. There was plenty of bad blood already and looked to be more now that the South had branded itself as a batch of foreigners who rejected our union rather than merely disagreeable countrymen. The material circumstances would have remained the same: the North had more people, more industrial muscle, more everything. Do you honestly think war would have been anything other than briefly delayed?

That's why I think the whole question's silly.

[LordShiva]

U.S. Civil War - Did the South Have the Right to Continue to Allow Slavery?

The U.S. Constitution does grant liberty, equality, etc., doesn't it?

[SlowwHand]

War Between The States.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
South Carolinian troops fire on Fort Sumter. The southern states had no problem with firing the first shot.

Yes, our brethren from the sovereign state of South Carolina fired on a hostile foreign military installation as it was being resupplied with materiel and ammunition by an armed foreign force. The first shots were not fired at Sumter, however, nor in South Carolina, nor even during Lincoln's presidency of the Yankee states.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by LordShiva
U.S. Civil War - Did the South Have the Right to Continue to Allow Slavery?

The U.S. Constitution does grant liberty, equality, etc., doesn't it?

At the time, it granted those things to white males of a certain age, yes.

[SlowwHand]

Seeing as how the only Blacks that were here, were brought here as slaves, sold by Africans to traders.

Talk about nice guys.

[Victor Galis]

Well... ok, suppose the South did have the implicit right to seceede. The north had the explicit right to declare war, to defeat and to reannex the south. The theoretical discussion is somewhat moot.

[SlowwHand]

How do you figure?

You say if the South had the right to secede.
If they had the right, they had the right. End of story.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kontiki


How many issues have popped up along the way that are not expressly covered in the Constituion? Why didn't they clearly outline these?

Not terribly many. The questions which have popped up have been primarily ones of detail and nuance, not fundamental changes - those have been pretty few. (Income tax and prohibition, primarily) Procedures were provided by the Constitution to resolve any of these issues, either through the legislative or judiciary, or by amendment. Due to the actual cases or controversies clause, the judiciary could not have considered the question of secession prior to actual secession taking place. For a seceded state to petition a foreign judiciary to recognize its right to secede from a union to which it was no longer bound would have been absurd - like the US petitioning the British crown for recognition of its authority to act in some particular way.

Lincoln made sure to avoid judicial review of his actions, because he had a pretty good idea of the results, and didn't want the inconvenience associated with part of his own government denying the legality of his actions and goals.

[DaShi]

But the US did petition Britain.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It can be implied by the text of the document. For example, the rights/powers distinction in the 9th and 10th Amendments. I have heard of a 'right to seceed', but never a 'power to seceed' as they refer to different things.

The ability to enter into compacts or treaties would be a power - as in Article 1, Section 10: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;"

Presumably, the ability to withdraw from existing compacts or treaties would also be a power, as it took a positive legislative act by the government of each sovereign state which chose to secede.

Southern state leaders realized that they needed to secede from the union first, to revoke the limitation in their power as sovereign states to which they had agreed in joining the union and transferring those powers to the government of the United States.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DaShi
But the US did petition Britain.

Not after the declaration of independence. Only when they were colonies with no pretensions of sovereignty.