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.
In the essay linked below, Mackubin Thomas Owens asserts that "the seceding states never invoked the right of revolution" and asks why not.
He suggests that the answer lies in fact that southern political theorists, exemplified by John Calhoun, rejected the concept of inalienable natural rights of individuals:
"The main reason was that while the Founders understood the right of revolution to be an inalienable natural right of individuals antecedent to political society, Calhoun, the architect of the theory of State sovereignty used to justify secession expressly repudiated the idea of individual inalienable natural rights. Calhoun dismissed the fundamental idea of the American Founding — that 'all men are created equal' — as the 'most false and dangerous of all political errors.' Given the large slave population of the South, this denial of the inalienable natural rights of individuals, including the right of revolution, was no doubt prudent.
" . . . For Calhoun, sovereignty was not a characteristic of individuals, but of collective political bodies. Individual rights, such as they were, were prescriptive, not natural."
The questions that this raises in my mind are as follows:
1. Is it true that southern political theorists and politicians relied exclusively on the (alleged) right of secesssion under the Constitution, and not on the natural right of revolution? I cannot think of any instances in which southerners relied on the natural right of revolution, but perhaps others here can identify some.
2. Assuming Owens is correct that southerners did not rely on the natural right of revolution, do you agree with Owens' reasoning as to why this was the case? His thesis makes a lot of sense to me, but again I'd be interested in getting the thoughts of others.
In raising these questions, I am trying to avoid getting caught up in an argument as to whether there was a right to secede under the Constitution. Even assuming there was such a right, as far as I can tell nothing barred southerners from arguing that they were also exercising the natural right of revolution. (Of course, if you disagree and think that it would have been inconsistent to invoke both the right to secede and the right of revolution, I'd like to understand why you think so.)
In the essay linked below, Mackubin Thomas Owens asserts that "the seceding states never invoked the right of revolution" and asks why not.
He suggests that the answer lies in fact that southern political theorists, exemplified by John Calhoun, rejected the concept of inalienable natural rights of individuals:
...
The questions that this raises in my mind are as follows:
1. Is it true that southern political theorists and politicians relied exclusively on the (alleged) right of secesssion under the Constitution, and not on the natural right of revolution? I cannot think of any instances in which southerners relied on the natural right of revolution, but perhaps others here can identify some.
2. Assuming Owens is correct that southerners did not rely on the natural right of revolution, do you agree with Owens' reasoning as to why this was the case? His thesis makes a lot of sense to me, but again I'd be interested in getting the thoughts of others.
In raising these questions, I am trying to avoid getting caught up in an argument as to whether there was a right to secede under the Constitution. Even assuming there was such a right, as far as I can tell nothing barred southerners from arguing that they were also exercising the natural right of revolution. (Of course, if you disagree and think that it would have been inconsistent to invoke both the right to secede and the right of revolution, I'd like to understand why you think so.)
There were many Southerners who felt there was no "right of secession". Robert E. Lee himself was clear on the matter, presenting his view several times to different people in the dark "Winter of Secession". He compared it to anarchy and revolution; he felt the Founding Fathers (some of whom I believe he probably had met) never intended it to exist.
Lee was a soldier, not a legal scholar, but there were other Southerners who agreed with him. In general they went along with secession as a man goes along with a flood: what else can he do?
OTOH, men like Jefferson Davis angrily denied they were revolting. Secession, they claimed, was a "legal" right. The "natural right of revolution" was recognized widely by Americans (what else was the American Revolution, if not that?); Abraham Lincoln acknowledged it long before the Civil War, and it springs from the work of Grotius, the Dutch phenom from the 1600s. But natural rights are not legal ones, and the revolutionaries of the South could not claim to be exercising a hypothetical "legal" right and also claim to be exercising the "natural right of revolution".
IMHO, the Fire-Eaters in particular were reluctant to admit there was no Constitutional or "legal" right of secession. As a result, they seem to have adamantly refused to admit they were exercising the "natural right of revolution"
There was also, BTW, a belief that no group of people had the right or ability to exercise the "natural right of revolution" without a reasonable chance of success. To do so when the effort was regarded as doomed anyway was regarded as wrong and dishonorable because it led only to useless death and destruction. This seems to have been particularly true of West Point officers, and after the war you will find some who resigned their commissions to "go South" arguing about how good the chances of success were for the Confederacy.
Longstreet was one who seems to have felt this way. In his From Manasas to Appomattox memoir, he spends some pages arguing that the Confederacy's chances were better than any rebellion ever made.
Appreciated that link, elektratig. Downloaded it for further reference and re-reading. As a sidebar, the secessionists, as did most Unionists, believed strongly in the natural right of revolting against oppression. Northerners, particularly the abolitionists believed strongly in its corollary -- the natural right of escaping oppression. The same belief didn't significantly thrive in the slave-owning states.
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
There were many honest Southerners who admitted that the Confederacy was indeed in revolt against an oppressive government, fighting to preserve certain freedoms that (they assumed) had hitherto been accepted as just and right and now was being trampled upon by an abusive and tyrannical force.
Calhoun showed the 'Leaders' of the Confederate Gov't that to claim the right to rebellion would put them on a par with their slaves, their claims for freedom from tyranny could (and would) be matched by any of their slaves.
But natural rights are not legal ones, and the revolutionaries of the South could not claim to be exercising a hypothetical "legal" right and also claim to be exercising the "natural right of revolution".
Tim
I'm confused. I would think a natural right could, by due process, become a legal right. Please straighten me out.
I'm confused. I would think a natural right could, by due process, become a legal right. Please straighten me out.
Oh, boy. Although the concept of natural law and natural rights is a hotly debated one, and very familiar to people like Thomas Jefferson and many Americans of the days before the Civil War, I am not sure anyone has ever had a really good definition of them. I took a course called "Philosophy of Law" many years ago, a required course for my Political Science degree, and I don't think I could come close to giving you a non-confusing definition of what they are and how, exactly, they are different from "legal" rights.
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights. That is probably as good a quick overview as you can find. Perhaps the clearest thing would be the line quoted there: "The concept of a natural right can be contrasted with the concept of a legal right: A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it may not be enforced by the government or society as a whole, while a legal right is a right specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its members. The question of which rights are natural and which are legal is an important one in philosophy and politics. Critics of the concept of natural rights argue that all rights are legal rights."
Given that, the claim that there was a constitutional "right of secession" meant that this was a matter of courts and law, of precedent, that could be decided within the legal system. The "natural right of revolution" fits in no law ever passed by sovereign king or elected assembly. It is solely a right to try to overthrow or change the system, by any means possible or necessary. It is trial by combat, with might determining right.
This is, in my view, what the South did. It is totally at odds with the concept of a legal "right of secession". You cannot be exercising both at the same time, only one or the other. No secessionist could ever claim he was using the natural right while he claimed he was using the claimed constitutional right.
I hope that hasn't made the subject even murkier for you.
Interesting observation, Will. The English certainly didn't consider the Revolution to be a legal right until forced to admit that the Colonies had indeed won independence. Had the "War of the Rebellion" been won by the Confederacy, the Union would have likewise been forced to admit that the Confederacy had won independence.
By its very nature, armed rebellion can never be legal -- unless it's successful.
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Once it went to war, all those silly rules were none of the above. Bets were off. A fight to the end. Previous writer or two mentioned that the winner made the arrangements. Fortunately the stronger team won. They was us and we was them anyway, regardless of your angle of view.
__________________ "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
Once it went to war, all those silly rules were none of the above. Bets were off. A fight to the end. Previous writer or two mentioned that the winner made the arrangements. Fortunately the stronger team won. They was us and we was them anyway, regardless of your angle of view.
In a practical sense, you are right. Once you are at war, a lot of that sounds silly.
But it was not to the people involved. Emotionally, I think there were those who could not bear to accept that they were in rebellion. They saw themselves as true patriots; it was those other guys who were the dastardly traitors, not they. Jefferson Davis and others took this view: they claimed they were the true heirs to the Founding Fathers, and that the Republicans/Northerners/Yankees were the actual revolutionaries. Rhetoric can be used for anything.
There are also two major practical aspects to the whole thing.
Rebels are traitors and outlaws. The Confederacy wanted and needed recognition from foreign powers, who do not favor rebellions and revolutions. As a result they needed to present the appearance of legitimacy. Part of that was establishing a working government as quickly as possible, maintaining order, etc. Part of it was showing they had the power to defend themselves against the Federal government, whether they were legally seceding or rebelling. Part of it was simply national self-interest on the part of England, France, etc. The appearance of legitimacy was helped by maintaining there was a legal "right of secession", thus making it a little easier for foreign powers to recognize them.
On a personal level, revolutionaries that lose are in trouble. Their lives, their property, and their families are forfeit in many countries. In 1776, the American Revolutionaries understood and accepted this. They were putting their heads in the noose when they stood against their King. Ben Franklin was not kidding when he told all the other signers of the Declaration of Independence "We must all hang together or we will surely hang separately."
I have never seen any evidence that the revolutionaries of the Confederacy faced that within their own beliefs. They did not see themselves as in rebellion; they denied they were revolutionaries. They found it outrageous that anyone would accuse them of such a thing or threaten punishment for their actions. They saw anything they did as justified, whether it be seizing property, breaking agreements unilaterally, or firing on Federal soldiers. Whatever else, these men refused to see themselves as others saw them.
I understand they felt that way, although I view it as an instance of willing denial of a self-evident truth. I would have far more respect for them if they had faced the truth of their case as the rebels of 1776 did. Personally, I think they were afraid to do so because it would mean looking in the mirror too closely. The persona cultivated by far too many was that they could never admit a fault, and saw as a deadly insult any attempt to disagree with them.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
The Natural Right of Revolution 
Linear Mode
