Did the South have the right to secede?

[hive_king]

Do you think the South had a right, either Constitutional or otherwise, to secede from the Union during the American Civil War? Discuss.

[eriador]

I don't think that there is any legal basis for doing it, but in this case, the laws are kind of out of the question, as secession is larger than the constitution. I would say that they didn't do anything WRONG, though they didn't necessarily have an explicit right to do so. I personally think that they, believing in what they believed in, did what they could to defend their beliefs and were justified in doing that. I believe that Cascadian secession would be justified, though I'm not really militant about it happening. What it boils down to is that secession is justified to stand up for ones beliefs.

[luminousnerd]

What do you think would happen if someone tried to secede from the US today? It wouldn't fly.

The south was probably justified in seceding, but I'm still glad they failed. Tricky topic.

[VelvetElvis]

Silly Nick.

[Fish Tank]

They had a constitutional right to own slaves. I've read it enough times to understand that it was ok to own a slave.

The Bible condones slavery.

There shouldn't have been a civil war. But if the south wanted to, the south should have been left to secede.


I could see a civil war break out in the US. The way politics are run, and how the people are having less and less of a say.

[anonshadow]

So, um, what exactly do the Constitution and the Bible have to do with each other, again?

[AnthonyByakko]

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration, all of these reject the very premise of slavery in every fiber. No one has a "Constitutional right to own slaves" as FT so crudely put it. Slavery was an established human tradition, and was in the marrow of every culture and every society in human history previous to the United States - which outlawed slavery as soon as it was able. From the intial groundwork layed by Jefferson's presidency to prevent the growth of slavery, to prevent new slave shipments and to reject slavery in all states north of Mass; to the final rejection by Lincoln's Proclamation. The Constitution's very ideal is the antithesis of slavery - that no man has a right over another. Saying that the US somehow tacity accepted slavery because it existed in the South (an existance whose genesis was prior to the formation of America) would be like blaming Ronald Reagan for starting the Cold War or saying that Jesus thought everyone should smoke pot because he was annointed with a cannibus-based oil at his baptism by John the Baptist. (EDIT: allow me to clarify - the "baptism" ceremony as we know of it in Jesus' time took place after an annointing with oil - that was the purpose of the baptism, to wash away the oils after they had done their work. At that time, a common ingredient in the annointing oil was "kanehbosom" a Hebrew word for cannibus. As it would have been a wild-growing substance in the area, and is described in ancient texts, it would not be unlikely that the annointing oils poured on Him would have included a "hin" a Hebrew measurement of about 10 pints, of cannibus-extract oil. This amount of the substance would have caused extreme euphoria and a near hallucinatory state; a fact corroborated by it's use as a revelatory mechanism by Levitic preists.)

To anon; the Bible and Constitution have nothing to do with each other. FT's just throwing haymakers in the dark at straw men. Yes, the Bible condoned slavery (in the Old Testament); that has ZERO to do with anything.

Further Edit: I have no current opinion on the topic at hand, of whether the South had the intrinsic "right" to secede. Certainly, there are provisions implicated in the Declaration for the dissolution and reformation of a broken governance (a "solve et coagula" approach), but to my knowledge I have no definitive information about their "right" to do so.

[Fish Tank]

So, um, what exactly do the Constitution and the Bible have to do with each other, again?

In God We Trust.... ever hear that before?

From the intial groundwork layed by Jefferson's presidency to prevent the growth of slavery

Funny, Jefferson had roughly 100 slaves.

Each slave would count as three-fifths of a person? Slaves who escaped would be returned to their owners?

Phrases ring a bell? Of course the word "slave" was never used. And perhaps it was a bit harsh when I said owning a slave was a constitutional right. But it certainly was made clear that people were allowed to own slaves when the Constitution was written.

[AnthonyByakko]

So, um, what exactly do the Constitution and the Bible have to do with each other, again?

In God We Trust.... ever hear that before?

Not until 1886. And only on money. It wasn't until 1956 that it was an official U.S. motto. Your reference is devoid of meaning in regards to the Constitution.

Funny, Jefferson had roughly 100 slaves.

*Yawn.* And?

Each slave would count as three-fifths of a person? Slaves who escaped would be returned to their owners?

*Yawn* And? Just because the Constitution implies that slavery is wrong doesn't mean people are going to act in accordance with it - just look at how little our government respects the Constitution today.

But it certainly was made clear that people were allowed to own slaves when the Constitution was written.

Yeah. No one said otherwise. People have been allowed to own slaves since there have been people. The point is that the Constitution's framework and ideals made it possible for slavery to be eradicated in less than a hundred years of American existance - an institution that existed since the dawn of man, one which hundreds of years of Christianity and thousands of years of philosophy had failed to wipe out, was finished in less than a century by the ideals of the Founders.

[Yebra]

Being bored with your opponents arguments doesn’t stop them being better than yours. Let’s just have a look at some things.

Each slave would count as three-fifths of a person? Slaves who escaped would be returned to their owners?

*Yawn* And? Just because the Constitution implies that slavery is wrong doesn't mean people are going to act in accordance with it - just look at how little our government respects the Constitution today.

I really have no idea what you're saying here. The examples given clearly show that the constitution does NOT imply that slavery is wrong.

Saying that the US somehow tacitly accepted slavery because it existed in the South (an existance whose genesis was prior to the formation of America) would be like blaming Ronald Reagan for starting the Cold War or saying that Jesus thought everyone should smoke pot because he was annointed with a cannibus-based oil at his baptism by John the Baptist.

These are really poor examples, you can’t say the south was this little bit tacked onto an otherwise anti-slavery country. Slavery existed in the US without it being illegal, therefore the US accepted slavery, the fact that slavery is an ancient practice doesn’t make that any less true.

The Constitution is an inherently compromised document made by people desperate to preserve internal unity, to say that it rejected slavery ‘in every fiber’ is frankly bollocks. Three examples come to mind; the Enumeration and Fugitive Stave Clauses (that Fish Tank mentioned) and the preventing of Congress on prohibiting the “Importation” of slaves before 1808 (Not that the later ban on the slave trade can be seen as a entirely progressive step, much of the motivation came from slave-owners who’s own supplies of slaves would rise in value as a result). Yes, these were compromise, maybe the ‘spirit of it’ is against slavery however the constitution neither explicitly denied it nor explicitly allowed it but it accepted it and had concessions to slave owners within it.

The point is that the Constitution's framework and ideals made it possible for slavery to be eradicated in less than a hundred years of American existance - an institution that existed since the dawn of man, one which hundreds of years of Christianity and thousands of years of philosophy had failed to wipe out, was finished in less than a century by the ideals of the Founders.

Slavery became illegal in England before the Revolution and throughout the Empire decades before it was in America. The final abolition in the US wasn’t the result of the ‘framework and ideals’, it was the result of a long and bloody war.

Your constitution’s a fine thing, but let’s not give it more credit than it’s due.

[jotabe]

To honor the truth, the British Empire banned slavery earlier, and they put the power of the Empire to serve the cause of ending slave trade worldwide.

[Fish Tank]

Ever hear of "The Star Spangled Banner"?

Was written in 1814.

Check out the last stanza.

O say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen thro’ the mist of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
’Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation,
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto—“In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

1814 is a lot sooner than 1886.

And read the first couple of lines in the Declaration of Independence.


I wasn't saying that it says, "In God We Trust" in the constitution. I was simply saying that the Constitution is connected to the Bible because of the people who founded this country. Christians.

[DamienVryce]

Yes, If they disagreed with the government in place then they had the right to seperate. Yes, it was a shame, but it was not wrong.

[jotabe]

My oppinion is always leaning toward independentists: i believe that human beings have the right to chose their form of government... and that includes to be able to configurate themselves into an independent state of not.

Fish Tank... it says God, but how does it make it your God? This has been already discussed, and yes, the Fathers of the USA believed in God, but in a philosophic God, in a principle and generator of the Universe, in an absolute intelligence (think that some of them were freemasons). That's not exactly the Christian God.
A word on the freemasons: the "in God we trust" that appears in the dollar note, does so together with a pyramid whose cusp is truncated for a triangle with an eye (God) to appear. This symbol is reeks freemasonry. (Reeking in a figuratively sense, without negative connotation)


Also, i wouldn't advice about taking the lyrics of national anthems to face value. Anthems (and flags) are only useful as a political tool to manipulate people through messages that won't be checked by rationality (ensnaring music and pretty colors don't need rationality to be understood), but they will be received by the individuals' emotions.

[hive_king]

If you go by anthems, the English should be killing scots right and left...

Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the Queen!


Also, the Star Spangled Banner wasn't adopted as the national anthem untill 1931, by Herbert Hoover- untill then, it was just a poem.

[Snowdemon]

Of course the south had the right to secede. Its pretty much how this country started. By the U.S. leaving the British, except that they won and when the south tried to leave they lost the war to let them be independent.

[Slim]

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...

(emphasis mine)

Yes, they have the right. But the Declaration of independance is an idealist document. In the real world, all rights are not inherint. One's rights are dependant on the ability (power, luck or otherwise) to maintain that right. Britain didn't give us the right to secede from them, we took the right for ourselves. The same is true for the southern states, but they were not able to maintain that right they took for themselves.

[Epi]

I bet Quebec is probably the only jurisdiction in the world that could possibly muster a 'legal seperation' from a country. But only if they are clear about it Of course this hasn't been tested, but obviously people believe this to be true.

The south probably didn't have an overriding 'legal right' to cede, but then again aside from Quebec, who does?

[Reticent]

First, why specifically, did the south seceed?

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html


The two main reasons Georgia has lists are:

1) There was an extreme relaxed approach against those who helped slaves escaped and

2)The surrendering "fugitives of labor", or returning of captured slaves, were not happening.

Now, there are also many mentions on how the Republicans sole foundation was built upon abolition of slavery, and how the course of events were predicted.

In addition, it mentions many cases of hostility towards slavery.

To quote:

"In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations. "

It indicates as well that the Republican party, the party in control, publically commends the actions of those that "subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us." If the federal government commends the actions of those that break the law instead of seeking to bring them to justice, then is the government not itself breaking the law?

Missisippi then goes on the reitterate most of that, and also states:

"It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system." I point this out for future reference.

South Carolina expresses the same opinions, also mentioning that they predict the government to abolish slavery in the south.

South Carolina expresses the opinion of the prosecution of those that help slaves escape, as well as returning slaves to their owners.

It expresses the opinion that citizenshio was granted to those that can not become citizens.


That said, here are my thoughts.


Wether or not they were justified in secession depends on wether or not the constitution was justified in exacting slavery.

The previously quoted part "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" indicates that if the government were to act against the rights of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all men" then they had the right to seceed. I argue that slavery is inherently against "all men are equal" "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and with the quotation provided that the answer based upon it, is incorrect.


However, the government was ridiculously full of loopholes regarding slavery. While being against the very nature of the declaration, laws permitted slavery, and laws stated that slaves should be returned, that those that assist in freeing slaves from slave states are criminals. Because of the lack of effort from the federal government to uphold those laws, regardless of the legality of slavery, the government therefore infringed upon the rights of the South, and cessation was justified.

Had they seceeded due to the fear that slavery would be outlawed as was one of the reasons mentioned, it would not have been justified.

Had they seceeded due to slaves being granted citezenship instead of property, they would not have been justified.

Justified? Yes. But for all reasons of secession? No.

[Olhado_]

I do not really want to get into the slavery part of the Civil War, but I just want to mention that the Civil War was not strictly about slavery. It was instead about "state's rights" and that in the end the states really should have the most power and the federal government should have very little.

Basically, if something is not mentioned in the Constitution as being explicit powers to the federal government, then they should not have it. This excludes most of the organizations in our government today, like the CIA, NSA, FEMA, the education department, the transportation department, EPA, NASA, and the IRS. Yes, that is right the IRS they do not think the federal government should tax people. They think the states need to allocate the money to the federal government, instead of the other way around. The federal government can print money though.

Well, I am sure there is someone else who might be able to explain it better, perhaps Leto (if he is still here), but that is the best I know from discussions I have with a friend who calls himself this kind of Republican and not someone who agrees with the Republican party of today. I know he would say Lincoln had no right to try and force any state from banning slavery. He does not agree with slavery, but he thinks the states should have the right to decide for themselves.

[hive_king]

What rights, besides slavery, was the federal government using too much? Keep in mind Lincoln hadn't even been sworn in yet. And lincoln, before the civil war, never tried to ban slavery in any state, he only tried to keep it from spreading into the territories- something quite different indeed.

[anonshadow]

I've been afraid to look back in here. I see my fears were justified.

FT, your arguments are so riddled with holes it's ridiculous. Black people, women, and, hell--even white men who can't own land. Ever heard of who got to vote in the beginning? (And don't you dare bring up New Jersey.)

And the biggie--

You keep whining about the Bible and God being associated with our country. Ever heard of the first f****** amendment?

Additionally, using the Declaration of Independence as any kind of support for your argument about legality is just stupid. The Declaration is an important part of our history, but it has no more to do with the law of the United States of America than the Articles of Confederation do.

And jotabe, many of the founding fathers did not believe in God at all. FT just doesn't know his American history.

[Olhado_]

And Lincoln, before the civil war, never tried to ban slavery in any state, he only tried to keep it from spreading into the territories- something quite different indeed.

Well to some that was not something the federal government had a right to ban. If a state wanted slavery, then a state should have slavery. If a state wanted to ban slavery, then that was alright too.

You could be completely against slavery and still think this. In a more modern example there are a few who are against abortions, but do not want the federal government to ban it. If people want it banned, then they need to have their own state ban it.

[hive_king]

Please listen to what I said. He was trying to keep territories- legally under direct control of the federal government and not yet states- from having slavery.

[Reticent]

The Compromise of 1850 allowed for the terratories acquired from Mexico (with exception of Texas and California) to choose for themselves.

The Kansas-Nebraska act again allowed territorially choses.

The Kansas territory elected to have slavery, and yet the admission of it to the union was debately unjustly shot down because northern states didn't approve of a few clauses regarding slavery.

With this unbalance in the senate of more AntiSlavery states than Slavery states, it stands to reason that any state which wanted to enter the union as a slave state would be denied, increasing more and more free states into the union, creating more and more of an unbalance that had been compromised over and over before.

Olhado is saying that the states had the right to choose. You are arguing that Lincoln was trying to keep territories from having slavery.

You're both right. The Federal government had no legal basis to ban slavery if a territory so chose and Lincoln wasn't trying to abolish slavery, just keep it from spreading so that the Free States would gain a huge majority over Slave states.

[hive_king]

You're wrong on a few points, Ret. California did have the choice, and we chose to be a free state.

And about Kansas, it wasn't that Kansas democratically chose to be a slave state. The Lecompton Constitutional Convention was attended only by proslavery forces, and was widely seen as an illegitimate. There were also three other constitutions floating around for the state of Kansas, the Lecompton was just the one that reached congress first. In a referendum, the Lecompton Constitution was rejected, and eventually Kansas joined the union as a free state in 1861. That's why Kansas wasn't allowed to join. Notice that the free states let other slave states like Texas join. Also, keep in mind that during the time period you speak of, the senate was about 50/50, and the president was proslavery.

[Reticent]

Hmm... I think I was on crack when I put in those parentheses of Texas and California. I knew that. Oh well.

In any case, your points are correct. The purpose of the post was to point out that it was territories choosing slave or nonslave, not the federal government telling them what to be, and that I believed you and Olhado were making the same points.

No one had yet said to slave states "you will not be a slave state" but there was definately pressure and effort from the newly formed Republican party to keep slavery out of the new territories (as you pointed out, that was Lincolns goal). True?

When Lincoln was elected president Free states outnumbered slave states by two, and the party in powers entire agenda was antislavery. The slave states had every right to be afraid that slavery would soon be outlawed- yet, as I mentioned in a previous post, a preemptive decision to seceed based upon that fear was unjustified.

The justifiable reasons, as far as I'm concerned, was the Federal governments lack of upholding states rights in regards to the Fugitive Slave law of 1850, the points being-

1) bringing to justice those that aided in the escape of slaves

and

2) returning those slaves to their owners.

Throw into the pressure of the free states having the majority, and a party whose big platform was antislavery, and yeah, they are going to be a bit ticked off.

[Reticent]

Oh, and as for the "did they have the right?"

No. Refer to Texas V. White. States, according to the ruling, do not have the "right" constitutionally to seceed.

[hive_king]

Oh, no one is denying, least of all Lincoln himself, that the main branch of the republican party was trying to keep slavery where it was so it could "die a natural death". But that isn't interfering with the state rights. Linocln and other republicans like Seward and Chase never talked about forcing the south to be free.

When Lincoln was elected president Free states outnumbered slave states by two, and the party in powers entire agenda was antislavery. The slave states had every right to be afraid that slavery would soon be outlawed- yet, as I mentioned in a previous post, a preemptive decision to seceed based upon that fear was unjustified.

A two state advantage isn't exactly overwhelming, especially since most northerners didn't want to shake the boat too much. And the Republican party had a much bigger platform than merely constricting slavery. They also campaigned on a system of internal improvements, tarrifs, and homesteading.

Also, shortly before the civil war, some northerners tried to hammer out a last minute compromise amending the constitution to protect southern slavery and strengthening the fugitive slave act, but the south rejected it.

[anonshadow]

Don't you just love it when people forget basic US History, Nick?

[jotabe]

Still, i always wondered about this:
In Europe, about at the same time, was when the nationalisms began to take power: for example we had the unification of Italy and Germany. Not only that: this very same nationalism was the birth of national states, and every other country in Europe was stablishing a tighter and more uniform legislation over their territories (except for the colonies). Before the Epoch of Revolutions (1789-1848), it was common that the laws inside a country would be different from place to place.

Also, the aparition of national states brings the creation of national markets and tariffs. Industry of every country tended to become protected from foreign competition: this was very good for manufactured goods, but it was terrible for the countryside production: hence the power shifted definitely from the agrarian areas, where the landlords lived, to the urban areas, where the capitalists lived.

In my limited knowledge of American History, i always tried to translate these changes to USA. From this pov, the Civil War, in my eyes, was the fight of the urban, industrial North to create a protected national market in the USA. That would require a central power a lot stronger (since the central power had been conceived as quite weak from the start of the American Revolution). The South, instead, would have been damaged by this, since the South lived off the exportation of their massive agrarian production.
Am I wrong by far trying to apply the European History cathegories to the Civil War?

[hive_king]

I'd probably say there's a large part of truth in what you're saying, but there's alot more to the civil war than that.

[Fish Tank]

Fish Tank... it says God, but how does it make it your God? This has been already discussed, and yes, the Fathers of the USA believed in God, but in a philosophic God, in a principle and generator of the Universe, in an absolute intelligence (think that some of them were freemasons). That's not exactly the Christian God.
A word on the freemasons: the "in God we trust" that appears in the dollar note, does so together with a pyramid whose cusp is truncated for a triangle with an eye (God) to appear. This symbol is reeks freemasonry. (Reeking in a figuratively sense, without negative connotation)

I don't believe in any gods. But it sounds like the Christian god to me. Or can you explain to me what exactly the Christian god is?

A few of Deism's ideals:

God exists and created the universe.

God wants human beings to behave morally.

Human beings have souls that survive death; that is, there is an afterlife.

In the afterlife, God will reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior.

I don't know about you but it sounds pretty Christian to me. There is one god who created the Universe. This god wants us to be moral and civilized. We go to "heaven".

Don't even get me started on the Freemasons.

[jotabe]

That's pretty much what all deistic religions say (not only monotheistic ones), and what freemasons believe.

[Fish Tank]

Okay, name all deistic religions that say that.