Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
It's not so much about discussing secession in abstract as it is about discussing the relative rights of majorities and minorities, and the right to independence, in a general rather than peculiarly American context.
From my point of view there is nothing distinctively American about this question. The issues would be essentially the same if secession was happening in any country in the world.
Is a given community entitled to its independence if it wants it? Yes or no? Forget America. Forget slavery. It's an issue with global relevance.
Yes, I am saying no one anywhere has a 'right' to secession as a ploy to separate from a nation or political entity, without the consent of the majority of its citizens or a successful revolution.
This appears to be the only qualifers that I have seen in history, to include Bill's examples and the more recent past.
This is my short answer.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Yes, I am saying no one anywhere has a 'right' to secession as a ploy to separate from a nation or political entity, without the consent of the majority of its citizens or a successful revolution.
This appears to be the only qualifers that I have seen in history, to include Bill's examples and the more recent past.
This is my short answer.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
In that case, I can assume that it follows that you don't agree with the following Lincoln's quote?:
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. . . . . Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."
I guess it doesn't matter because he, ultimately, didn't believe in what he was saying either. It's ironic that the people of the South, whom he held so little regard for, did believe it as Thomas Jefferson believed it.
"If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, let us separate." -Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison
If state's rights were a myth, it is a myth that the colonies took with them into the Union, for they all believed in it. IMO, that makes it real enough.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
I am in complete agreement with the Lincoln quote you provide. People do have the moral right of revolution which is what Lincoln was reffering to, not some mystical, magical, legal theory of unilateral secession, which does not exist.
And if you research Jefferson a little more, you will find a quote where he states fellow States can 'compell' a state to comply with the wishes of the majority.
The right to throw off a government is called revolution, and I believe this is an option available to people if they are oppressed and cannot get consent or the government they feel they deserve.
But there is no 'right' legal or otherwise, of unilateral secession.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
The right to throw off a government is called revolution, and I believe this is an option available to people if they are oppressed and cannot get consent or the government they feel they deserve.
But there is no 'right' legal or otherwise, of unilateral secession.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
That is exactly what the Southern states believed. They felt that the U.S. government no longer worked for them. They believed the experiment had been attempted and failed.
I disagree that there was no unilateral right of secession. I don't think anyone could be judge and jury to determine if a cause was just or not. Secession was not a triffling matter. It was not an easy decision and did not happen overnight. It was thoughtfully considered and the facts weighed carefully. The Southern people supported it. Who had the right to say the Southern cause wasn't deserving of secession? The Northern people, whom by this time were considered their enemies?
Respectfully,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
I am in partial agreement with your statement, that some of the South felt the federal government was no longer working for them. But there were plenty of options open to them before taking that fatal step of rebellion.
The concept of a peaceful separation based on the theory of secession was long contested and opposed by more than one president (Andrew Jackson and Zachory Taylor come to mind). Even as late as the 1850's, most SOUTHERN states agreed that secession was nothing but treason and rebellion (Mississippi said so in no uncertain terms).
I say again, in agreement with Lincoln, people anywhere at anytime who feel that their government no longer represents their best interests, have a right to rebellion. But call it what it is, as the Founding Fathers knew what it was, an illegal attempt to throw off that existing government.
Again, I agree with you, rebellion is no triffling matter, and should only be considered after every other legal option has been tried and exhausted. Why didn't the Southern states try to get a candidate more to their liking elected in the next election in 1864? Why didn't they try to press the cause to the Supreme Court? Why didn't they call for a national referendum on their grievences? Why not try every other means short of bloody war to get their agenda across?
For over seventy years the South had control over the Congress, the Supreme Court and the office of the President. They still had control in the Supreme Court and could muster more than enough support in the Congress to control Lincoln's agenda.
You are right. The facts and causes of the crisis should have been carefully weighed and considered, far more than it was. Unilateral secession was, as General Lee termed it, nothing but rebellion, and should have been the last, desperate measure of a desperate people. Which was not the South in any way shape or form, except for the institution of slavery.
The States had no 'right' to unilateral secession, then or now.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Are you suggesting that no State may secede for any reason, and if they do, the Federal government can use mililtary force to suppress their withdrawal? When a State peacefully secedes, others can follow or continue on as before - no one's will is compromised. Otherwise, one group of people is imposing it's will on the other at the point of a bayonet.
Which illation defines 'respect?'
Dawna
Dawna,
No state may unilaterally secede for any reason. I think that it is clear that the federal government has the authority to use military force to prevent the illegal secession of any part of the nation. There is only one provision for peacefully seceding, to amend the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
Dawna,
No state may unilaterally secede for any reason. I think that it is clear that the federal government has the authority to use military force to prevent the illegal secession of any part of the nation. There is only one provision for peacefully seceding, to amend the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution.
Marc:
In order to condone the use of force, one would have to label a group of people as "rebels", or secession as "illegal." It's interesting that the colonists of 1776 were referred to as "Patriots," but people who fought for the Southern cause were branded as "Rebels" or "Traitors."
Where specifically in the Constitution does it prohibit secession, or sanction the use of coercion against a fellow state? And what rights do you have if you are not free to peacefully withdraw from a government that no longer suits your needs?
"The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts (constitution), by which it was bound. " Madison
"Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charms for me." Robert E. Lee
It stands to reason that even if secession had been illegal, President Lincoln still had other options available than the one he chose. And that alternative would have saved the lives of over 600,000 people.
It's interesting that the colonists of 1776 were referred to as "Patriots," but people who fought for the Southern cause were branded as "Rebels" or "Traitors."
Hi, Dawna,
I don't suppose "Patriots" is what they were referred to by the British and secession was never their claim. Revolution was. It does make you wonder if the Revolutionary War had been lost and we continued on creating a history as part of Britian, if we would today regard Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, etc. as rebels in the same light as Davis, Stephens, Lee, etc..
Of course, I'm sure the British would have hanged them all.
In order to condone the use of force, one would have to label a group of people as "rebels", or secession as "illegal."
Dawna,
The use of force doesn't require labeling any group as anything but violators of the law. The attempt to unilaterally undo a Constitution, to undo the results of a legitimate democrat election, and to unilaterally dismember a nation is by definition rebellion. The President has the authority to enforce the laws, and the Militia Act of 1795 gives the President specific authority to use military force to suppress a rebellion.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
