Did the states comprising the Confederacy actually secede?

Did the states forming the CSA, actually secede?

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 66.7%
  • No

    Votes: 8 33.3%

  • Total voters
    24

Glorybound

Major
Retired Moderator
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Location
Indiana
secede:
verb (used without object),-ced·ed, -ced·ing.
to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc. (dictionary.com)



There's already a poll on the legality of southern secession which has drawn quite a few replies, and is a good indicator on how people feel about that issue. There's a thread going on right now that is discussing the secession issue, and whether or not the states in question, actually seceded. So, just placing the question in a poll, the question is this: Did the states comprising the so-named Confederacy, secede? If they did not secede, then how should they be viewed? What was their status?

Votes are anonymous, and includes moderators as well.

Lee
 
The Southern states surely felt this way. But I belive that the SCOTUS ruled a few years later that they did not. That definition says a lot.

I don't feel the ruling by the SCOTUS can be viewed as unbiased and/or unprejudiced. Does anyone really believe the SCOTUS could rule that the Southern States DID have the legal right to secede, and thus proclaim that the US had waged an illegal war on an independent nation? No, the SCOTUS would not rule against the US in favor of the Confederacy.
 
To All,

I believe another forum member stated it best when he said, "If you secede, you'd best succeed."

In my own view, there was an attempted rebellion under the guise of the theory of unilateral secession. In order for this theory to have worked, the act of rebellion would have to be successful gaining recognition as a newly formed nation in the eyes of the world at that time.

It did not happen, as this attempt did not succeed so those states in rebellion were never out of the Union.

IMO.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
Mr. Blue, thanks for your thoughts. Just to clarify then, in order for the secession to have been a valid state of affairs, accomplished, a done deal, if you will, the Confederacy would have had to have been recognized as a legitimate sovereign by another sovereign nation, and would have had to have been militarily victorious. In other words. at some point during the rebellion, ('61-'65) international recognition of the Confederacy, plus a treaty of peace between the US and CS would have been required to certify that those states that were part of the rebellion, had in fact actually seceded from the Union. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks again.


Lee
 
The "Theory" of unilateral secession was a artificial, political construct, designed to meet the specific needs of a minscule minority in American society and politics. "Secession" itself, was merely the figment of fevered southern imaginations.
 
There was no secession but an armed rebellion. Remember, No states population formally voted for secession. It was an armed rebellion led by the Masters of their cultural and economic institution of slavery..
 
Be careful with the use of "no, none, never, and always." I think the Virginia legislature voted for secession with the condition that a popular referendum approved.
 
Of course they did. Since the boys fighting them used the term 'secesh' I'm thinking they would agree too. So many neo-unionists, so little time.
 
To put a finer point on it, they thought they did. They really didn't, but they thought they did, and that's all that matters. Did or didn't, the entire affair was still a rebellion. Secession with shooting is rebellion. Had the Confederacy prevailed, we'd be calling it a revolution.
 
To put a finer point on it, they thought they did. They really didn't, but they thought they did, and that's all that matters. Did or didn't, the entire affair was still a rebellion. Secession with shooting is rebellion. Had the Confederacy prevailed, we'd be calling it a revolution.
The Russian Revolution of 1905 failed...but it's still called a revolution.

The 1848 Revolution in the German States failed...but it's still called a revolution.
 
Mr. Blue, thanks for your thoughts. Just to clarify then, in order for the secession to have been a valid state of affairs, accomplished, a done deal, if you will, the Confederacy would have had to have been recognized as a legitimate sovereign by another sovereign nation, and would have had to have been militarily victorious. In other words. at some point during the rebellion, ('61-'65) international recognition of the Confederacy, plus a treaty of peace between the US and CS would have been required to certify that those states that were part of the rebellion, had in fact actually seceded from the Union. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks again.


Lee
All that sovereignty requires is force.
 
Anyone(neo-confederates, et al.) who thinks 'secesh' refers to the rebel states actually being out of the Union, are wrong. There is very little historical evidence of the success of secession and overwhelming evidence of its failure.(even as a theory, much less a historical fact)
 
The Russian Revolution of 1905 failed...but it's still called a revolution.

The 1848 Revolution in the German States failed...but it's still called a revolution.
What they call them makes me no nevermind. They failed. They were rebellions. We had one and we call it a revolution. We had another and it was a rebellion. You can call it what you want; it was a failed rebellion.

Ole
 
In my opinion, yes, they did. Whether it was legal, moral, or whatever is a separate issue from the fact that they did it. People do things that aren't legal, moral, or whatever all the time, SCOTUS rulings or no.

If kids run away from home, their parents may bring them back, but that doesn't mean they didn't run away.
 
In my opinion, yes, they did. Whether it was legal, moral, or whatever is a separate issue from the fact that they did it. People do things that aren't legal, moral, or whatever all the time, SCOTUS rulings or no.

If kids run away from home, their parents may bring them back, but that doesn't mean they didn't run away.

Agreed K. If, during the American Revolution, France had not recognised us, would that mean that we did not secced from King George? IMHO the south states participated in a failed seccesion, but still a seccesion.
 
No, it was a failed attempt to secede. Scession was Never Actualized(never made real).
Slave states engaged in an unsuccessful rebellion to gain actual and total separation from the laws and authority of the United States of America.
The 'attempt' at rebellion failed and the desired separation(actual and total) was never achieved.

P.S. the csa's claims were not unlike Joshua Abraham Norton proclaiming himself "Emperor of these United States"(and lateras " Protector of Mexico") in San Francisco, in 1859.
 
At time of this post the poll says 61.54% believe Secession happened. Usually that's called a landslide.
 
Not unlike the majorities the csa claimed validated secession; but in the end, counted for nothing, as far as secession, anyway.
 
Back
Top