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

[DaShi]

Well, then it was the South's fault for not following proper procedure.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by 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.

Then you obviously have no qualms about the US invasion of Iraq. The yankees did not declare war, and packaged all the moral posturing about the invasion of the south as "restoration of the union" and then later, when it seemed like it would play better to certain audiences, "freedom."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DaShi
Well, then it was the South's fault for not following proper procedure.

What proper procedure? States never gave up their sovereignty as a condition of entry into the union, or of statehood. In fact, despite the continual erosion of state's rights and state's sovereignty, they still haven't formally relinquished sovereignty.

The colonies had no sovereignty until they decided to declare an open rebellion against the crown and assume sovereignty unto themselves. They were a part of England, with no official existence or rights except as defined by the crown, at its pleasure. That only changed by rebellion. The only rebellion necessary to establish the sovereign commonwealth of Virginia was that against the English crown, 85 years prior.

The states which seceeded to form the Confederacy were sovereign at all times, prior to the ratification of the Constitution, while bound under the Constitution as part of the United States, and upon secession.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Caligastia
In what way could a right be different from a power?

Congress has the power to declare war. I have the right to vote. Congress does not have the "right" to declare war.

[Dr Strangelove]

Then there is the enigmatic ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Shortly before the outbreak of the Civil War a group in Utah, the Mormons, attempted to form their own country so they could enjoy freedom of religion and the delights of polygamy. The US government promptly suppressed their noble endeavor and nobody, no non-Mormon body that is, objected. No southern state so much as lifted a pinky finger to help them. If the South had a right to secede why didn't these people? Never mind the part about the Mormon community being within Federal territory, this is about their 9th amendment right to self-determination and freedom of religion just as much as the secession of the southern states was about the southern states 10th amendment rights.

[Kuciwalker]

MtG: if Cuba attacked Gitmo, would we still be the aggressors?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Look at it this way: the south has no right to talk about rights because their secession was for the purpose of continuing to abuse the rights of individuals (the slaves).

Nor then, did the Yankees, as they still recognized slavery, denied representation and political rights to women and non-whites, etc.

And the monolithic south argument is crap. Seven states which did not secede and join the Confederacy changed their position when the yankee government decided to ignore its Constitutionally limited powers and demand that the states furnish regiments of "volunteers" to be turned over to Federal control for the purpose of invading the seceded states. When Lincoln showed he had no interest in being constrained by the limitations of the Constitution, four more states seceded from the Union, and three declared themselves neutral - clearly believing that they had the sovereign power to reject unlawful assertions of Federal power by the Lincoln administration.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
MtG: if Cuba attacked Gitmo, would we still be the aggressors?

We have a lease agreement with Cuba. They voluntarily renewed it back in 1934, with the lackey government we approved. Nevertheless, we continue to technically abide by the lease terms, even if they don't cash the checks. The lease terms are inherently unreasonable, but as Castro pointed out some time ago:

"that base is there just to humiliate Cuba; just like a knife stuck in the heart of Cuba's dignity and sovereignty… But from a military standpoint, the base is completely useless."

There was not even a patina of legality regarding Ft. Sumter, it was a critical military installation, as it controlled trade in South Carolina's only deepwater port, and the US was overtly deceptive with regard to ints intentions to use the base and with regard to its willingness to negotiate a peaceful resolution.

Cuba has a more complex legal problem by far, because you get into that whole can of worms as to when and whether and how a new government can unilaterally reject or modify treaty or contract terms corruptly granted by a former government.

[Wycoff]

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 10th amendment is somewhat of an enigma in Constitutional Law. AFAIK, It really hasn't been applied very much, because it is vague and no one knows how to apply it.

Sorry if this has already been addressed, I haven't read through the thread.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
But what does that have to do with secession? Furthermore, as Imran pointed out, states have powers, individuals have rights.

States have rights as well, but the philosophical underpinning of "rights" is semantically different - much of the contemporary revolutionary sociopolitical philosophy of the time considered rights as God-given, at a time when government was typically hereditary and dictatorial, with the notion that any "rights" were creations of, and granted or revoked essentially at the whim of, the ordained rulers.

States have powers over their citizens, and simultaneously have "rights" with respect to each other and as voluntary associates who have assigned certain limited government functions to a collective super-government.

Nations are not like other groups, so no. People should not be allowed to break up nations because they don't agree on matters of policy. If individuals disagree that strongly they can leave... like I did.

A nation is nothing more than an arbitrary aggregation of individuals, who either consent to the aggregation to serve mutual goals and interests, or who are forcibly oppressed and subordinated to the nation by those who rule it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
We have a lease agreement with Cuba. They voluntarily renewed it back in 1934, with the lackey government we approved. Nevertheless, we continue to technically abide by the lease terms, even if they don't cash the checks.

From what I read in the wiki article our claim is kinda dodgy (though so is theirs).

There was not even a patina of legality regarding Ft. Sumter, it was a critical military installation, as it controlled trade in South Carolina's only deepwater port, and the US was overtly deceptive with regard to ints intentions to use the base and with regard to its willingness to negotiate a peaceful resolution.

Hadn't South Carolina specifically ceded the land to the federal government?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
From what I read in the wiki article our claim is kinda dodgy (though so is theirs).

Yeah - it's a typical post-colonial, post-imperial can of worms. Our interest in and treatment of the sovereign rights of the leetle brown people was pretty abysmal, and it's the height of hypocrisy to rely on its "legality" today.

There was not even a patina of legality regarding Ft. Sumter, it was a critical military installation, as it controlled trade in South Carolina's only deepwater port, and the US was overtly deceptive with regard to ints intentions to use the base and with regard to its willingness to negotiate a peaceful resolution.

Hadn't South Carolina specifically ceded the land to the federal government?

The land history is somewhat arcane. The Sumter site was not a natural island, with titleable land - unlike Moultrie, or the other land battery sites. It was an intertidal sandbar, with boundary and elevation subject to change every time a big storm went by. South Carolina never challenged the right of the United States to dump tons of rock on the sandbar, to build up a base for a fort, as a part of the United States' assigned authority under the Constitution to provide for the common defense. That's a lot weaker and more limited than actually granting a piece of land and title to that land - or a leasehold, or anything else.

The rights of the United States were limited to providing for the common defense of the United States - once South Carolina seceded, the United States had no authority to remain in any installation within the sovereign territory of South Carolina, as there was no "common defense" of the United States to be provided thereby.

The good folks of South Carolina might have been willing to pay for a bunch of granite and some unfinished walls, but the US government lied about its intentions and refused actual negotiations, while it dispatched representatives to the Governor's office suggesting that negotiations might be held. (A ruse to gain time for the resupply and augmentation mission).

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by 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.

Well... the constitution doesn't limit the north to declaring war on people that have done anything particularly wrong. If the north didn't like the south seceeding, they had the power to beat the snot out of the south... which they did.

Then you obviously have no qualms about the US invasion of Iraq. The yankees did not declare war, and packaged all the moral posturing about the invasion of the south as "restoration of the union" and then later, when it seemed like it would play better to certain audiences, "freedom."

Having the right to do something, and having that thing in particular be a good idea are two entirely distinct arguments. In this case given the current situation in Iraq, Mr. Bush's war was a stupid idea implemented horribly.

[Lonestar]

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.

I'd argue that, alone of the seceding states, Texas was the only one with a leg to stand on (being independent for a better part of a decade).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, it has the same as any other state not in the original 13, as Texas had to petition for statehood and be admitted by Congress, rather than being a pre-existing sovereign state which agreed to form a union with other sovereign states by their adoption and ratification of the Constitution.

Texas is no different in that respect, than, say, Hawaii. You're all red headed stepchildren compared to the original 13 sovereign states.