[Captain Hat]

I've seen various books that defend and condemn the CSA. Did the Confederacy have a right to secede? If so, where does that right come from? If not, where is secession banned?
Discuss.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Did the Confederacy have a right to secede?

No. But neither did the union have the right to keep raping the confederate states.

If not, where is secession banned?

By those with the bigger guns, or industry in this case.

[Fernando]

Captain, sorry if my post doesn't provide you on sources about the specific US topic.

------------------------------------

In any federal/confederal state there is some right to secede, regardless if the Constitution (written or not) admits so.

The right to secede comes from the same place where comes the right to unite from: the will of the people.

The questions are:

1) Who has the right to secede? A state, a part of a state?
This question is very important. Usually, rich people are willing to secede from his countrymates, given that they have

In US Civil War W Virginia seceded from Virginia (please, correct me if I am wrong).

2) How is the division of common goods performed? How do we separate public debt or the White House?

3) How must the will be expressed? It is quite obvious that some part of the population won't like to secede.

I think "canadian" solution about Quebec possible secession is quite logic.

As far as I know the resolution of the Constitutional Court proclaimed that it is necessary a "clear" majority to perform the secession. In Quebec case it was not necessary since independentist never reached 50%.

Another argument can be taken from Quebec example: a nation usually takes centuries to build. Why a simple majority, in a given moment, can destroy it?

4) What obligations remain? In the case of Quebec, which has almost no border with no countries but Canada, they would only secede if Canada guarantees a fair treatment for the tariffs on its products, but Canada has no obligations to play fair: it's a free country, negotiating with another free country.

I see a nation as a kind of marriage: although every member is free to leave, it must be taken into account the number of ties to be broken.
-----------------------------------------------------

In the case of CSA, I think that:

1) It was not clear who wanted and who didn't want to separate: the situation in Kansas, W Virginia, etc. was not clear.

2) The will of the states was not expressed in free plebiscite, but as a pronunciation of the state legislature.

3) Given that we assume the will of the population agreed with his legislature (at least in non-border states), we are assuming WHITE opinion, not BLACK opinion. Obviously this is a moral argument. It has no value from a legal point of view, BUT if you consider the number of representatives in the Chamber was computed (partially) taking into account the number of black people.

4) The separation method was not peaceful. The first to shoot was CSA, not USA. You can think that Fort Sumter was only an artificial cassus belli, but I think the first in using the force has lost part of its right.

Therefore, I think the North (the Union) had the right to restore the status quo, giving afterwards the states the possibility to express themselves. Obviously, after 5 years war no chance for a peaceful segregation were to be given.

Since I have only a superficial knowledge let me know if some data are wrong.

[Captain Hat]

Actually, in most states of the CSA, conventions were formed apart from the State Legislatures to decide secession. Few state legislatures voted directly for secession. My home state's legislature, the Maryland General Assembly, voted against secession and skipped altogether the convention process that many of the other southern states adopted.
Some would say that the Confederacy was right in that secession is not spoken of at all in the Constitution, and must be interpreted as a right to the states not specifically listed. However, could the foundation of a "Perpetual Union" under the Articles of Confederation of 1777 be passed on to the Constitution in 1787?
EDIT:
Amendment X to the United States Constitution:

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.

[Fernando]

I don't think the amendment you are quoting should apply. In my country we have an almost federal government and there are a distribution of competences (duties&rights), but there is no a "right to secede" in no country as far as I know. This is not a competence. Country are born with the aim to live for ever. Only confederations or associations of states have formal ways to separate. Even in the EU there is no a legal mechanism to secede.

In US Constitution (again, you will know better) I only find one article about this and it talks about secession WITHIN an state.

Section. 3.
Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

and, in the case of W Virginia, it was not respected.

I think that a secession is, in fact, a break of Constitution. If the real things go to a place where Constitution didn't think any solution, a new constitution would have to be written down.

By the way, I don't know no country broken into pieces peacefully but Cezch and Slovakia. It is ever a traumatic process.

[Captain Hat]

Well, when South Carolina seceeded in Decemeber of 1860, The 10th Amendment was the argument used to support secession. Secession is not directly dealt with in the Constitution, therefore, it must be a right reserved to the states. Also, southerners in that day and age spoke of the United States as "the United States are" as opposed to "the United States is." Those states that formed the Confederacy felt that the United States was just that, a Union of sovereign states. In the North, however, the Union was viewed as perpetual and indivisible. Some in the South felt this way about the Union, but also felt that they could not fight against their own home state. Before the war, Robert E. Lee said, "I can see no greater calamity than the dissolution of the Union."
As for West Virginia, I believe the Federal Government made an exception in admitting it to statehood because Virginia was in a state of rebellion and claimed to be a foreign nation.

[Fernando]

I knew Lee's words. And I agree with him. I can understand his feelings and I think that many people from Maryland, as a border state should share his worries.

When you enter in a lon-run association, such as marriage, job (at least in Europe) you can sign whatever, but the important thing is that the relationship can not stand the same. In Europe we have something of this now: some people want to go federal and some people want to stay alone, with minimum ties.

I think CSA noticed they were in a non-return point since there had been a process from 1783 with almost no stops to give more powers to the federal government.

Anyway I think the secession possibility (not only in US, but elsewhere) is ill-defined, because there is a sacred respect for sovereignity and nationalism that has no sense. Sovereignity is defined as absolute independence and remaining in the union as absolute dependence. this way the path from one to another is full of problems.

[Captain Hat]

I think you've got a pretty good handle on this, Fernando...
Some historians will call the early years of US history the "Great Democratic Experiment." And for years, this is what many Americans thought. The Union is just an experiment. However, this idea began to break down with the Constitution in 1787 and the War of 1812.
However, Southerners still felt they had the right to back out of the experiment anytime they wished. New England, angry about issues over the War of 1812 formed the Hartford Convention in 1815 to consider secession from the Union. This, of course, failed because of Jackson's victory at New Orleans and the conclusion of the Treaty of Ghent. This set dangerous precedent, though.
By 1860, the South felt that they were not being represented well enough in Washington, and that their way of life was threatened. The Confederate States felt that the "Great Democratic Experiment" was a failures and were determined to try something else.

[Fernando]

Your point is Northern states would have separated if the Union would have gone in other direction, but they were to the direction that North wanted after 1812.

So, CSA (South) was right when seceding, since the Union (the experiment) was too much Northern-biased.

Not unreasonable, but:

1) The North has a moral advantage in the point of the slavery, although I notice that slavery subject (against common opinion) was not the main point.

2) As I said before the CSA had several "formal" points against:

- The people didn't approve the secession, specially in border states.
- Some states were internally divided: Should they separate or keep in the Union?
- The separation was made with violence.

3) History: Union has proven better (it's my opinion) to achieve the people's welfare as well as to empower the nation as political instrument. Wouldn't be the CSA a kind of Mexico? Wouldn't the different CSA quarrel between them?

4) Personal (and awarely biased) opinion: I am a pro-union cause I think it is far easier to destroy than to destruct. As a general rule (repeat twice) I think it is better for men to build larger political unities because nationalism takes (unavoidably) to war and stupidiness.

Off topic: In other thread I have read you are a "confederate". Assuming that you are not a slavery supporter, which way can you be a confederate today?

[Captain Hat]

When I said I was a "Confederate" I was merely trying to make a Joke and see if anyone noticed. I'm not a Confederate, I don't support secession or slavery.

On a different note....
What is everyone's opinion about Confederate Democracy? Could it ever have survived the war if the Confederate States had won, or would those seceeded states have returned?
Discuss.

[Captain Hat]

Thoughts, anyone?

[liberalist]

When I said I was a "Confederate" I was merely trying to make a Joke and see if anyone noticed. I'm not a Confederate, I don't support secession or slavery.

You did not have to support slavery to support the confederacy, nor did you have to oppose slavery to support the union. The issue was over slavery in the Western states, not as a general issue. After all, Robert E Lee opposed slavery, yet fought for the confederacy. And William Sherman owned slaves, yet fought for the Union.

2) As I said before the CSA had several "formal" points against:
- The people didn't approve the secession, specially in border states.
- Some states were internally divided: Should they separate or keep in the Union?
- The separation was made with violence.

True, the people did not approve secession, and they were divided. But the same can also be said for the ratification of the constitution. In fact, it was apt that conventions decided the fate of the confederate states, because it was conventions (not the voting public) who decided to ratify the consitution. So if you are saying that the confederacy was illigetemate because it was not approved by the people, and that people were divided over the issue, then you are also saying the original ratification of the consitution was illegitamate because it was ratified in the same way.

As for the seperation being made with violence. This is not true. The seperation was made peacefully, it was only because the Union did not want to let the South go that violence occured. The violence came because of the desire to keep the Union, not because of a desire to seperate. The violence, in my opinion, should be blamed on the North, not the confederacy.

[Fernando]

I have no information enough, liberalist, but the first gun to be fired was a confederate one. Of course if the Union simply hadn't supplied Fort Sumter or had left go the CSA no war had happened, but he could have asked for the seccession peacefully. You can not say: "You don't give me that, then I shoot you". I think Abe Lincoln hadn't even taken office.

About the people/legislature approbation you are right: US Constitution wasn't given a direct approval by the people, but (at least after expelling por-Brits) the popular support was given by day-to-day political practice. Meanwhile a separation (at least in doubtful states) was to be decided by the people. I assume that, in most of them, approbation would be given, but you would have a peaceful and reflection period to think and to negotiate with the Union.

I don't support secession or slavery

The acclaration was not neccesary. I was assuming the slavery point.

What is everyone's opinion about Confederate Democracy? Could it ever have survived the war if the Confederate States had won, or would those seceeded states have returned?

I have given my personal opinion on this subject previously: US and CSA would have fought about the West territories. Every nation would be as powerful as Canada and Mexico and, as a consequence, these two countries would have entered into the fight for North America. Nowadays US has the (huge) advantage of having an almost-unarmed land frontiers, because their neighbours are far less powerful and US has no territorial claims on them. That is a luxury that no european state has never had because of the equilibrium of their military powers.

In some years maybe the mexicans could have claimed the territories of California, Texas... and CSA could degradate in an agricultural country. And it is hard to understand how a big nation should have maintained united if it has been founded on the basis of the freedom of their parts.

[liberalist]

I have no information enough, liberalist, but the first gun to be fired was a confederate one. Of course if the Union simply hadn't supplied Fort Sumter or had left go the CSA no war had happened, but he could have asked for the seccession peacefully. You can not say: "You don't give me that, then I shoot you". I think Abe Lincoln hadn't even taken office.

Consider this. If an army begins to build itself up on, or inside, a countries borders it is generally considered to be an act of war. For example, if the Soviets in 1962 had put nukes on Cuba it would have been considered, by the US, as an act of war. The same thing goes in the Civil War. Fort Sumter was inside South Carolina territory. Once SC had left the union, the union army had no right to be in SC unless authorised by the SC government. By keeping armed men at Fort Sumter the Union was effectively commiting an act of war against South Carolina, and thus an armed respsonse by the South Carolinians was to be expected.

[Captain Hat]

Liberalist, the only problem with your argument is that the Federal Government did not recognize the independence of South Carolina, much less the government of the Confederate States. The world did not recognize the CSA. Without recognition as a free state, the seizure or attack by South Carolina on Fort Sumter, which was federal property, was an open act of rebellion against the United States. Fort Sumter existed years before secession, anyway, and was not a sudden build up. As a matter of fact, Ft. Sumter was undermanned and was running low on supplies by the time South Carolina seceeded in 1860.

[liberalist]

You are correct Captain Hat. I guess the issue is wether the confederacy should be seen as a legitamate revolutionary state, which broke away from the Union, or as an act of rebellion against the union. I tend to think that given the way in which the USA was formed that revolutionary acts, and certain rebellions (such as the confederacy) are legitamate. So, I think that the Confederacy had the right to break away from the Union, and the union was at fault for the war.

[Captain Hat]

The Right of Revolution, is what I believe you're shooting for. Many southern writers during the era used this as the Confederacy's right to exist. However, I believe the Confederacy was more of a Counter-Revoulutionary State than a Revolutionary one. The Union was seeking more progressive ideas (Tariff reform, no Slavery in the Territories, public education, etc.) than the South. So, in regards to a revolutionary state, does a Counter-revolutionary state count?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The Confederacy most certainly had a right to secede. Certainly in moral terms, and almost definitely in legal terms. While the Articles of Confederation and later the United States Constitution declared the union to be "perpetual", neither document ever explicitly forbade secession. As common law tradition is to forbid and not to permit, this means that secession, per the supreme law of the land, was permitted. Additionally, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions stated that states had a right to nullify federal legislation as well as the right to secede. This was intended as a counterbalance to a Constitution many felt entrusted the federal government with too much power. The Resolutions were never repudated by the federal government.

The framers in general, as well as the people of the United States, always perceived the Union as a voluntary arrangement of equal states, not as a perpetual bond that could never be broken. This ideal, however, was sorely tested in 1832, when the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" was made law. South Carolina, which imported a large number of goods from abroad, decided the law was tyrannical and nullified it. While earlier citizens of the Republic would've accepted this, President Jackson was enraged and threatened to invade South Carolina if it did not collect the tariff. South Carolina threatened to secede in response. Fortunately, a compromise solution was worked out, thanks to Henry Clay. A new, lower tariff was passed, and South Carolina resumed function as a member of the Union. However, a dark precedent had been set.

In the 1840s and 1850s, Democrats largely controlled national politics, the result being gradually lower import tariffs. As a result, in 1860, the average US tariff level stood at just 15%, lower than they would stand until the 1980s. However, out of the splinters of the Whigs had emerged the new Republican Party. The Republicans were a neo-mercantilist party, dedicated to the policies of Alexander Hamilton. Protectionism, central banking, and infrastructural improvements by the central government. All of this was abhorrent to southerners. Worst of all to them was Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln only secured the Presidential nomination by convincing the Pennsylvania and New York delegations that no one was more dedicated to protectionism than he. With the north's significant population advantage over the south, the stage was set for exactly what the framers sought to avoid: dominance by one group of the nation over another. Southerners, who already paid 88% of all the nations tariffs by virtue of their tendency to import far more, saw the writing on the wall. After the Republicans swept into power, the average tariff rate skyrocketed to 45%. By the eve of the Civil War, it had reached 54%. Under this framework, it is very easy to see why the south seceded. Not only was secession legal, but it made great sense. To not secede would've been to invite economic ruin and tyranny. As John Marshall said, "The power to tax involves the power to destroy."

Lincoln, however, would have none of it. He called for 75,000 volunteers to help squash the "rebellion", and brashly declared that the south would not suffer invasion if it collected the new tariff. He also offered the olive branch of promising to forever uphold slavery (an olive branch which would later be offered in the Emancipation Proclamation--according to the document the south would be allowed to keep slavery if it ceased its "rebellion"). The south, aghast, began making military preparations. After a South Carolina militia shelled Fort Sumter (total casualties: one horse), Lincoln had all the justification he needed to invade the south in a war that would kill 620,000 Americans.

The rest, as they say, is history.

For the record, I'm not a southerner. I was born in Illinois, spent two years in California when I was very young, again lived in Illinois until the age of 18, after which I relocated to my present location in Wisconsin. There are no southerners whatsoever in my family. In fact, my parents are Swedish immigrants.