posted
After the Civil War, I thought that we (the US) had enacted some. Never learned about them, just always assumed that we had, particularly after the spat between Lincoln and the Congress about the state's right to secede (or lack thereof).
Anyway, a recent news story led me to believe that we never passed such legislation, and that a state can still legally vote to leave the Union. Was there a reason for this?
posted
Its not at all clear if anybody could even absent such a law (or if such a law could remove such a possibility were it ever possessed, for that matter).
This part's a powerful argument otherwise:
quote:Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
There's nothing about "the supreme Law of the Land unless a state votes otherwise" in there, for instance.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds 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
There's a higher law that they can.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You know America has no right to complain about the Chinese/Taiwan if they wouldn't let the Confederates seceed. (the whole slavery thing notwithstanding)
IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah. Refusing to acknowledge the South's secession was a gigantic torch of hypocrisy and an egregious violation of once and future principles.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once that big war was over, it wasn't necessary to pass a law banning secession: secession had already been banned by military force. And they'd look pretty silly admitting they'd just fought a war to stop a legal state decision.
Future unions would make the legality of secession, or the illegality, explicit.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Civil War was going to be fought no matter what. If it wasn't about unification, it would have been about conquest. Two expansionist nations right on top of each other with near a half a continent up for grabs were going to fight it out. By making it a war for unification, the North was able to keep the South relatively alive and intact after their inevitible defeat.
And let's remember, the war was officially started by the Confederate raid on Fort Sumpter.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If Lee hadn't lost those battle orders the world would be a very different place. Lets just say, 6,000,000 jews would not have died.
Though instead it would probly be 6,000,000 African Americans.....
Is there no escape? Read Harry Turtledove's "Guns of the South", "Great War" series and "American Empire" series, and currently "Return Engagement" series. I currently have them all.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: After the Civil War, I thought that we (the US) had enacted some. Never learned about them, just always assumed that we had, particularly after the spat between Lincoln and the Congress about the state's right to secede (or lack thereof).
Nope. There never was, and there still isn't. When Tyrant Abe was asked how he could justify preventing Southern independence by force, seeing as there's nothing in the Constitution that says they can't secede, his response was, "There's also nothing in the Constitution that says they may secede."
I actually object to the dishonesty of the term "civil war" for that conflict. A civil war is when forces within a nation fight a war to decide which of them gets to rule it. No one in the South was trying to take over the government of the United States, and calling it a "civil war" was no more than Union propandada.
Look, I don't know if things would have been better or worse had the CSA's war of independence not been lost. But regardless of the answer to that question, the fact remains that Abe Lincoln had no legal right to prevent the secession.
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: Anyway, a recent news story led me to believe that we never passed such legislation, and that a state can still legally vote to leave the Union. Was there a reason for this?
Well, sure, a state can legally vote to leave the Union. That doesn't mean they'd be allowed to do so. The Confederate States legally voted to leave the Union, and a whole lot of people died in the process of preventing them from carrying it out.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The Civil War was going to be fought no matter what. If it wasn't about unification, it would have been about conquest. Two expansionist nations right on top of each other with near a half a continent up for grabs were going to fight it out. By making it a war for unification, the North was able to keep the South relatively alive and intact after their inevitible defeat.
Though their defeat was far from inevitable. It was damned close, in fact. And maybe they would have fought, but then, maybe one or the other would have formed a pact with the Indians against the other side, which would have no doubt been to the benefit of the Indians.
What might have happened is a question for Harry Turtledove and company. The 7 states which seceded and formed the Confederate States of America did so for the same reasons that the United States of America seceded from Britain. What made one right and the other wrong? The answer is: nothing other than the fact that the victors write the history books.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: And let's remember, the war was officially started by the Confederate raid on Fort Sumpter.
<blink> Wow. You actually sound serious. You can't be, though. Can you?
Who started the US War of Independence? What did the newborn USA do with British military installations on US soil?
Fort Sumter was in South Carolina, the first of the 7 Confederate States to secede. South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860. On February 4, 1861, after Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas had joined them, they declared the sovereign nation of the Confederate States of America.
It was every bit as legitimate as the decision of the Continental Congress in 1776.
The US refused to vacate CS land, and while firing on Fort Sumter was a bad mistake, it was still a legitimate action against a foreign power which refused to respect Confederate sovereignty.
quote:the fact remains that Abe Lincoln had no legal right to prevent the secession.
Not true...as fugu pointed out, I believe. They aacceded their right to do so when they joined the Union...unless the Union decided to desolve, like the US did with the Articles of Confederation, they had no legal standing to do so, unless the Union reconized their decision.
Also, they were trying to overthrow the government...and replace it in their states with their own.
Semantics aside, I think I personaly am glad the North won.
It wasn't all THAT close, except for the very beginning of the war. In the beginning the North didn't take the South very seriously at all, and that was the main reason they fared so poorly. Once the North orginized for war the South had little to no chace of winning.
After Gettysburg most of it was over...except for the dying.
quote: The answer is: nothing other than the fact that the victors write the history books.
quote:the fact remains that Abe Lincoln had no legal right to prevent the secession.
Not true...as fugu pointed out, I believe. They aacceded their right to do so when they joined the Union...unless the Union decided to desolve, like the US did with the Articles of Confederation, they had no legal standing to do so, unless the Union reconized their decision.
I wouldn't say that fugu pointed it out so much as that fugu made that claim. Perhaps States that joined the USA afterwards had that specified, but I don't believe that Florida and Louisiana and Texas agreed to any such thing when they joined up. And the others didn't join up; they were among the 13 original States. So they could hardly have agreed to any such thing.
The US didn't have Britain's permission to secede, either, remember? That's what seceding means.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Also, they were trying to overthrow the government...and replace it in their states with their own.
That's... an interesting use of language. Again, you could say exactly the same thing about the US attempt to overthrow the British colonial government and replace it with their own. The US was founded on the idea that we have the right to rule ourselves. There is no difference between USA independence and CSA independence other than the fact that the USA succeeded in its quest for independence, and the CSA failed.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Semantics aside, I think I personaly am glad the North won.
May I ask why?
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It wasn't all THAT close, except for the very beginning of the war.
That's a big "except", wouldn't you say?
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote: The answer is: nothing other than the fact that the victors write the history books.
Not exactally.
Why not exactly? What's the difference? I'm asking you honestly. What can you point to that differentiates between the two attempts to win independence, other than the success of one and the failure of the other?
The only differences I can see are all in the opposite direction that you seem to be claiming. Britain wasn't founded on the basis of individual rights and self-rule, so it made more sense for them to try and prevent US independence. The US was founded on that basis, so preventing CS independence made less sense, ethically speaking.
posted
Of course Abe Lincoln had a right to wage war against the south, EVEN IF IT WERE CONSTITUTIONAL for the southern states to suceed. Note the quote that was provided about dissolving the bonds that bind us. There's nothing there that requires the other side to amicably accept the breaking of those bonds. Letting the south walk away would have been a tremendous blow to national security.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, all the states agreed to the Articles of Confederation AND the Constitution...the signatures are right on the Document.
As far as it being semantic drivel, think of it this way...you could make almost, if not exactly, the same claim about almost every revolution/civil war, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
As far as the winners writing the only accounts, read your own posts...I think I smell more than a little revisionist history there.
Failed revolution or civil war, the fact is that the South felt it had a right to succeed,and the Union objected. The Constitution is a legally binding document, and since there was no legal method of succession, by definition (according to the Constitution) it was unlawful. You can't be bound by a law, or a legal document only when it is convieniant for you, if you agree to be ruled by it then you are bound until such time the law changes...or until you revolt successfully.
That is the difference...the Southern states had CHOSEN to bind themselves to the fate of the USA, rather than having such an government bequeathed to them by nobility from generations past. The North was not willing to allow them to dissolve that union, and defended their right to the entire USA, rather than just their states.
As I said, it is mere semantics...failed revolution, civil war....
I am glad because I don't think the rights of the states outweighs the rights of the Nation as a whole. I feel there should be a balance between the two. Also, while it's importance has been downplayed lately, slavery was still a factor in the states division before, during, and after the civil war, and was predominantly a Southern practice at that point. I think the abolition of slavery alone more than makes the Civil War worth fighting.
This argument isn't a profound revelation, you know, nor is it particularly insightful.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Of course Abe Lincoln had a right to wage war against the south, EVEN IF IT WERE CONSTITUTIONAL for the southern states to suceed. Note the quote that was provided about dissolving the bonds that bind us. There's nothing there that requires the other side to amicably accept the breaking of those bonds. Letting the south walk away would have been a tremendous blow to national security.
<blink> Riiight. The Russians might have invaded. What national security issues do you think letting the Confederacy exist would have caused?
And why do you think that allowing the colonies to break away was any less of a national security issue for Britain?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Actually, all the states agreed to the Articles of Confederation AND the Constitution...the signatures are right on the Document.
And...? Neither document stated that the Union was irrevocable. They entered into it voluntarily, and they could leave voluntarily.
The 13 colonies were different. They weren't independent states that entered into a voluntary union with Britain. They were created by Britain. If it was okay for them to break away to pursue their own destiny, it was much, much more okay for the southern states to end their participation in the Union.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: As far as it being semantic drivel, think of it this way...you could make almost, if not exactly, the same claim about almost every revolution/civil war, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
Try it. It truly isn't the case. There've been genuine civil wars. Here's a list of some of them (although it includes the War of Southern Independence, which it shouldn't.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: As far as the winners writing the only accounts, read your own posts...I think I smell more than a little revisionist history there.
It may surprise you to hear that I have actually read my own posts. And there's no revisionist history there at all.
An honest person would actually try and show what was supposedly "revisionist". Someone just trying to score points would engage in the kind of hit-and-run you just did, and toss out an accusation without any support whatsoever.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Failed revolution or civil war, the fact is that the South felt it had a right to succeed,
It sure did. The right to secede, also. And in fact, it did secede. But it was conquered by the US and essentially annexed.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: and the Union objected. The Constitution is a legally binding document, and since there was no legal method of succession, by definition (according to the Constitution) it was unlawful.
Wrong again. The Constitution is a document that enumerates the rights and obligations of the federal government. It is not an exhaustive list of rights everyone else has. And...
=================================== Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. ===================================
Yeah, the Constitution actually does permit secession.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is dicta in a SCOTUS ruling that the people, not the states, enacted the Constitution, even though it was done through the states. The preamble lends some credence to this.
This argument is one of the driving theories for protecting federalism, even when states agree to intrusions by the feds. The theory is that the state/fed division is one of several important protections built into the Constitution to limit government, and that such division is a right of the people, not the states.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, to answer your last question--the Atlantic Ocean.
There is a big difference between a country an ocean away, and one that shares a major border with you. Add to that the border tensions that would have resulted from anti-slavery/underground railroad groups in the north, the massive debt owed by southern interests to northern interests, and the massive trade deficit and that was the southern economic situation, and there was plenty of security issues that would have been generated by an indepentent South.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given nearly all successful secessions have taken place through combat, one might think it odd to consider there a right of peaceful secession at the time the document was written.
As for the Constitution allowing secession, starLisa, you have hardly proven it. It is unclear on the topic, and as I have pointed out includes language suggesting directly against secession, but all the language you point out as being "for" allowing secession is general language you have chosen to interpret in a particular manner.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"<blink> Riiight. The Russians might have invaded. What national security issues do you think letting the Confederacy exist would have caused?
And why do you think that allowing the colonies to break away was any less of a national security issue for Britain?"
National Security Issues: 1) Suddenly very large hostile nation directly to the south 2) Loss of massive percentages of crop land, requiring dependance on foreign nations to supply food 3) Loss of important riverways 4) More non-water borders to defend against invasion
Just a few...
As for the second half of your statement, the Brits didn't let the colonies walk away without a fight, now did they? It was a MASSIVE national security problem for the Brits, and one might note that at the time of our secession they were the most powerful nation on earth, by a LOT, and just 100 years later they were only one of many powerful nations. The loss of the colonies had a direct bearing on that plunge.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Read the Harry Turtledove books, 1,2 no wait 3, THREE major wars in under 70 years.
IP: Logged |
quote:You know America has no right to complain about the Chinese/Taiwan if they wouldn't let the Confederates seceed. (the whole slavery thing notwithstanding)
You don't see why seceding from a dictatorship might be a more defensible act than seceding from a democratic republic?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Feel free to tear me apart on this one, I study European History a lot more than American, and it's been a while since High School
Personally, I think the whole concept of a government created through the consent of the governed allows for the possibility of secession. Admitedly, I think that the Southern States premise for seceding was shaky. Yes, they did feel that their rights as citizens were being infringed upon, and in a sense they were right, as it is justifiable to secede from the union, but the reason they wanted to secede was because they felt it was justifiable to own slaves.
The premise for seceding seems to me to have been that "federal government is infringing on our right to prevent others from having the same rights as we do." The debate may have been about state's rights, but it was also about whether a slave was entitled to the same rights as others, whether a slave was indeed a person.
Again, my memory from my American History Class is a little shaky, so tear my arguments apart, I'm likely remembering this wrong.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Yeah, the Constitution actually does permit secession."
But if you happen to reside on Louisianna Purchase land or Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty land or Seward's Folly land or Gadsden Purchase land, your landlord may have you put out.
Native Hawaiians have the most legitimate case for secession.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
[quote]You don't see why seceding from a dictatorship might be a more defensible act than seceding from a democratic republic?[quote]
But both countries were in a sense of that term dictatorships, except of course the CCP had more of a democratic governemnt then what Chiang Kai Shek did.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by skillery: "Yeah, the Constitution actually does permit secession."
But if you happen to reside on Louisianna Purchase land or Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty land or Seward's Folly land or Gadsden Purchase land, your landlord may have you put out.
Native Hawaiians have the most legitimate case for secession.
posted
I'd think Texans would have a better case for succession, they were the only state to be their own country before they joined the union.
Isn't the land purchased by the federal government still technically theirs? The US Gov bought the LA Purchase, the Gadsden Purchase, Seward's Folly got us Alaska, and the federal government spent millions killing Indians to free up land use for American settlers. The southern states breaking away sounds more like annexation than succession.
Although, theoretically, Alaska was a part of Russia, so saying that it got us Russia isn't wholly wrong. Either way, it was a typo. My bad.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
