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

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Victor Galis

South Carolina could have attempted to take the matter before the court.

No, they could not. There would be no case or controversy within the jurisdiction of the US courts without secession, and no standing in the US courts after it. Plus it would be self-defeating to admit jurisdiction of US courts after secession - it would moot the entire argument.

[chequita guevara]

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

Total strawman.

[SlowwHand]

Oh God there's that word again. Facts are facts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
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).

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

[SlowwHand]

What's that next line say, Imran? Don't stop, read on.

Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law;

In other words, you're not part of the Confederacy, so vacate.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lonestar
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).

Parts of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana were the Republic of West Florida before it was annexed by the U.S. No one ever really considers them an independent country, but they were for about a decade before the U.S. just up and annexed them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What's that next line say, Imran? Don't stop, read on.

In other words, you're not part of the Confederacy, so vacate.

Er... no. In fact, that's a very very poor way of reading that line (a court would laugh at that reading). It means it is given to the federal government provided that civil and criminal procedures may be served and executed upon someone who strays to the Fort. It's basically to prevent some person from taking a boat to Fort Sumter and you can't touch me to the state. All it does is allow South Carolina to go across and serve the person or haul the escaped offender off to jail.

As from the link:

The process was very simple: a state would, through its members of Congress and senators, argue that the National Interest required that a fort be built, such as one in the middle of Charleston Harbor. The necessary legislation would pass Congress and be signed by the President. Then the state legislature would pass a law granting title (if the state owned the property) or affirming title (if the land was privately owned) to the United States. The one general exception was a clause inserted to allow state officials to enter the Federal property to seize fugitives from justice or to serve civil process papers. Depending upon the property in question there might also be affirmations of the right of eminent domain, i.e., if the private owner was unwilling to sell, the property would be appraised and, under the Fifth Amendment, the government would judicially take title, paying the owner the appraised price. In other cases, the state's approval was contingent upon the Federal government using the land. South Carolina's legislature was so anxious to have Fort Sumter, that it provided for the first two and left out the third exception.

And it is important to note that the title given to the United States was fee simple, with specific notice that the property was exempt from any state or local taxes. Except for the qualification that the property could be entered to seize fugitives, the property passed in perpetuity to the Federal government.

[chequita guevara]

Up until 1865, states had a right to secede. Now they don't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Oh God there's that word again. Facts are facts.

And irrelevant facts are strawmen. Stick to the argument at hand.

[GePap]

Who cares, the South lost. The real shame is that the north was too accomodating after the war. The military occupation after victory should have ben longer, harsher, it should have cleaned out that swamp.

[SlowwHand]

It is a fact, Che. It was brought up who the document was written for, and it wasn't Black men. There were none. You don't like it but that's still facts. When they came, they came as slaves. No documents pertained to the. They were property. A tool. Like a horse or a plow.
Wrong as it may be morally, it's still correct.

And Imran, I'm done arguing with you, as I've said.
What I WILL do is attribute you to you, and nothing else.

[realpolitic]

The South had a right to seceed under the 10th Amendment, but just as if someone shoots someone, the shooter loses their rights.


Once the South secceded, it was now a seperate country, and the Feds had a right to declare war on them, since it happened in the 19th Century.

However, today the greatest of war crimes is fighting a war of aggression, and had the south not fired the first shot, Lincoln could be executed as a war criminal.

[GePap]

Only if he got into a time machine and went to 1945. And only if he had lost the war.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
Who cares, the South lost. The real shame is that the north was too accomodating after the war. The military occupation after victory should have ben longer, harsher, it should have cleaned out that swamp.

All the secessionist scum should have been shot and the lands salted, starting with NYC.

[Deity Dude]

I think it is obvious that the 13 original states had a right to secede. They were independent entities when they joined the union and never explicitly gave up that right. Since they never gave up that right, under the 10th Amendment, the Federal Government is constitutionally powerless to stop them. Although Congress does have the right to declare war on any country it chooses.

Now did the other states, Louisiana for example, have the right. Louisiana was part of the territory of the United States before it became a state. I would think their claim would be weaker. One could argue that by seceding as a state they would still be a territory of the United States.

It is important to note that one of the major reasons Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, et. al. were never tried for treason after the war was because it was widely felt that the case would have gone to the Supreme Court with the Supreme Court recognizing the right of secession (or should I say recognizing that the power to forcibly stop a state from seceding was not granted in the Constitution therefore it rested with the States and the People). This would have been very embarrassing for the Federal Govt and would have undermined the legitimacy of the war.

Furthermore, after the war the defeated states were READMITTED into the Union. You don't readmit something that never left. I believe part of the terms of the readmission were that they would agree not to secede again. Thus at that point in time they lost their right to secede and granted the Federal Government, thru contract, the power to stop them if they tried again.

I am assuming, but do not know for a fact, that all new states after 1865 also agreed not secede as terms of statehood, or perhaps it is considered unnecessary since they were territories of the United States before gaining statehood.

Which makes for an interesting question? Does one of the original colonies that was not readmitted to the Union (New York for example) have the right to secede? Or put another way, under the 10th Amendment, is the Federal Govenment constitutionally powerless to stop them from seceding from the Union they joined as an independent country.

One final point. Since at least some of the states had the right to secede, the war should not be called the Civil War. It should be called something that recognizes the independence of the 2 warring parties such as the Spanish-American War or the Mexican-American War did(ie. The United States-Confederate States War would have been more appropriate) And like those 2 wars, the outcome resulted in the United States annexing territory from the defeated.