Secession, right or wrong?

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
YES as a matter of fact EVERY government rules by force, of somekind or another. In our case we rule by Representation of the people, with the majority having the power to make and eliminate laws ( though the Constitution places a few restrictions on that power) But it is Force that keeps every country together. Friendly feelings and no laws only work if at all in very small communities. The Government not only has force BUT is required to use it to ensure the welfare and safety of all.

People or governments are justified in using force to stop bad people from harming other people. I don't believe that people or governments are justified in using force to stop innocent people from doing harmless things.

Slavery is harmful and should be stopped; but secession in itself is not harmful, and the use of force is not justified merely to "keep a country together".

This is very sound, but Ft. Sumter had been fired upon. At this point, the match had been dropped in the gasoline and things spiralled out of control. Lincoln had to respond to Ft. Sumter. He didn't do anything provocative prior to that point.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Be so kind as to show us ANY amendment proposal for the Constitution that included the language that the States could leave anytime they wanted?

And as was pointed out the Articles of Confederation are NOT nor were they in 1861, the law of the land. They were REPLACED entirely by the US Constitution.

Using your arguement I guess we can go back to slavery cause, well it exsisted legally at one time too. Who cares if it was repelled and replaced by another law or document.

EXACTLY !

See the ACW started in 1791 with the vague Amendment X which was opposed heavily in the south. [;)]


Amendment X 1791

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.

[Sarge]

PS: Now try figuring out the right to impose the Constitution on to individual states when in fact the removal of individuality is reduced over time and in contradiction to the original foundations.


Good luck

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: lvaces
To people like us with libertarian political leanings...

You may well say so. I've been describing myself a libertarian for more than twenty years, though it's not a common label on this side of the pond.

ORIGINAL: lvaces
southern society then (or now) was certainly not libertarian.

I don't insist that people have to be libertarian in order to qualify for liberty. I doubt that the slaves were genuine libertarians either.

ORIGINAL: lvaces
Reiyrc's challange was to say why the southern revolution of 1860 was wrong in the southerners' own terms. The southerners of that time saw themselves as following in the 1776 tradition and were always saying since all right-thinking Americans agree the 1776 revolution was legal, how can ours be illegal? One way of putting the answer is that according to the Declaration of Independence, revolutions are like the "Seinfeld" holiday of Festivus, a proper one contains a good airing of the grievances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festivus). Since their list of grievances was ridiculously small, it is not up to the Declaration's standard to be proper (legal).

It seems to me that the weight of real grievances was equally low in both cases. The 18th-century list was largely imaginary; they could have adapted it slightly and republished it in the 19th century, with about equal (lack of) justification.

In both cases, secession happened because people felt that they had serious grievances. I don't agree with them in either case, but as they wanted to leave I'd have been willing to let them. If treated in a friendly way, they might have been willing to return to the fold later. If not, well, life goes on regardless.

[Twotribes]

LOL the South WAS treated in a friendly manner and the response was THEY attacked the North.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
This is very sound, but Ft. Sumter had been fired upon. At this point, the match had been dropped in the gasoline and things spiralled out of control. Lincoln had to respond to Ft. Sumter. He didn't do anything provocative prior to that point.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
LOL the South WAS treated in a friendly manner and the response was THEY attacked the North.

I keep forgetting about Fort Sumter, don't I? In fact the South didn't attack the North at Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter was in the South. You could just as well say that Major Anderson attacked the South by occupying Fort Sumter.

Well, never mind that. More to the point, Fort Sumter was a minor incident and other countries have experienced more serious incidents (involving actual casualties) without going to war over them. If it was just a matter of avenging Fort Sumter, the USA could have bombarded a Confederate fort for a similar length of time, and honours would have been even. For a four-year war causing a million casualties, one must assume other motives.

Admittedly, the Confederates were not easy people to be friendly with at the time, as Lincoln must have thought to himself.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
I keep forgetting about Fort Sumter, don't I? In fact the South didn't attack the North at Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter was in the South. You could just as well say that Major Anderson attacked the South by occupying Fort Sumter.

Geographic location aside, the Federal Government claimed Ft. Sumter, 1t was occupied by Federal troops, flying the Federal flag. While well after the Civil War, Guantanamo Bay is an example of a government changing and the land occupied by the Federal Government. Cuba didn't attack and no war. It's a sore spot with them, but no shooting war transpired.

Well, never mind that. More to the point, Fort Sumter was a minor incident and other countries have experienced more serious incidents (involving actual casualties) without going to war over them. If it was just a matter of avenging Fort Sumter, the USA could have bombarded a Confederate fort for a similar length of time, and honours would have been even. For a four-year war causing a million casualties, one must assume other motives.

Wars have been started by less. It was a classic territorial dispute and the South didn't try to resolve it through non-violent way. If the South wanted to play the aggrieved party, they needed to do it to the hilt. Shooting first kinda defeats that purpose.

Admittedly, the Confederates were not easy people to be friendly with at the time, as Lincoln must have thought to himself.

Lincoln could have just shrugged off the attack on Ft. Sumter, but that wasn't the way back then. Keep in mind the Federal Government still occupied Ft. Pickens in Florida as well. Was Lincoln suppose to sit on his hands after Ft. Sumter and HOPE another bloodless bombardment didn't take place? The Federal Government wasn't occupying land that wasn't Federally owned prior to secession, yet Florida demanded the Ft. Pickens garrision surrender on April 12, 15 and 18 of 1861.

[Twotribes]

Using the logic that Federal Property wasnt Federal Property anymore cause that State left the Union leads one to the conclusion that Virginia would have been justified in demanding Washington DC back, after all, at one time that was part of Virginia.

Lincoln did NOTHING to provoke the Southern States, he took no action at all UNTIL the South resorted to ARMED rebellion. He did nothing while they raised armies ( not even raising his own until AFTER the South attacked the Federal Government) He did nothing while they siezed unmanned federal property, arms and stores. He did nothing while they organized an illegal Government and refused to yield to the controls of the Constitution they claimed to cherish.

The aggressor here, notwithstanding the revisionist claims, was the South. The South not the North resorted to armed conflict. All Lincoln did is respond.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Let's consider two possible cases:

1. The US government was willing to consider letting the Confederates secede up to Fort Sumter. In this case, it should have realized that it would lose outposts such as Fort Sumter, and it should have appreciated that keeping soldiers in such outposts would be seen as an aggressive provocation. Cuba aside, countries don't normally tolerate foreign military outposts in their own territory.

2. The US government never had any intention of letting the Confederates secede. In this case, Fort Sumter was irrelevant: war was inevitable whatever the Confederates did (short of recanting their secessionist heresy).

Having said that, I do agree (and I've said before) that the Confederates played it all wrong and should have been impeccably peaceful for as long as possible. I suppose the best excuse for the war is indeed that the Confederates weren't easy people to be friendly with at the time; and indeed that helps to explain why the northern soldiers were willing to fight.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Sarge. Someone is going to point out to you that the "Articals of Confederation" were SUPERCEEDED by the "Constitution of the United States" about 10 years after they were written. Might as well be me.

This is incorrect. The Supreme Court has never decided which of the Articles, Declaration, Constitution or Treaties in effect has preeminence over the other so until there is a test case we have no way of knowing.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: lvaces

Reiyrc - Jefferson is saying that people who are being oppressed have the right to rebel. I, and most people, would agree. This does not mean that anybody has the right to rebel just because of an election result they do not like (otherwise no democracy could ever exist).

He is saying that people who feel they are living under tyranny have the right to form a new government. The question is, what constitutes tyranny? Would the unjust loss of property constitute a reason? I would argue that he would think so.

You point out to me the oppression that Lincoln as President was going to place on the south and then your Jefferson quote from the Declaration of Independence becomes applicable.

The unwillingness of many in the north to uphold the 1850 fugitives slave law concerning runaway slaves comes to mind.

Otherwise it is not. The only real oppression in the Jefferson meaning being done here is by white southerners against their slaves. So what your quote actually proves is that the slaves had a right to rebel, not the white southerners.

No, it shows that the south had a right to rebel.

You didnt write this? Exactly what property was unjustly removed, stolen or taken?

Yes, I wrote that...

The property that was unjustly lost was a slave that was not returned contrary to laws that protect property.

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

LOL the South WAS treated in a friendly manner and the response was THEY attacked the North.

1] Go home. Sorry you got stationed here in the South.

2] Reread history. Being the only South Carolinian in this fight so far and having a class in state history, you are in error. We Seceeded on Dec 20, 1860, claiming all land in our borders and territorial seas to 3 miles, which included Fort Sumter. Mj. Anderson was camped in Fort Moultrie at the time (also claimed by us). He loaded into boats and invaded the empty Fort Sumter expecting to establish a foothold for the capture of Charleston or at the least a way to be evacuated by a rescuing party despite having been offered free passage out of the state. So despite Union revisionist history, Mj. Anderson actually invaded South Carolina territory from South Carolina territory that he illegally occupied after being granted honors of war.

[jimwinsor]

Correction: Ft. Sumter was not "empty" when Major Anderson transferred his command in late December 1860; a small party of US engineers was at Sumter busily engaged on construction work since at least October of that year (acting very much like they owned the place, I might add).

[Twotribes]

South Carolina didnt OWN the forts, they were Federal property. They were NOT State property. Using your logic we are back to Virginia demanding Washington DC back , Virginia and North Carolina demanding the states west of them back ( the territory oroiginal was part of those States. ect ect.

I am not "stationed" in the south. I chose to LIVE in North Carolina and have done so since 1993. Is it now your opinion that only those that agreee with you are allowed to live where ever it is you decide they can?

As to the previous claim about unreturned property, be so kind as to provide evidence that captured escaping slaves wer NOT returned as required by law.... Furthermore reread the Constitution, why were Southern laws more important than Northern laws? The Constitution requires all States to honor the laws of all other States. In the North it was ILLEGAL ( you know AGAINST the law) to own slaves.

The entire premise of the Souths reason to leave the UNION was bull, the Federal Government was forcing the Northern States to obey Souther States laws. President Lincoln had announced publicly he had NO intention of trying to change that.

If the justification for land ownershup is simply that someone CLAIMS it, then ownership will become that of the most powerful entity, the one that can enforce its will on anyone that sits legally or not on land they want.

[Greyshaft]

Be so kind as to show us ANY amendment proposal for the Constitution that included the language that the States could leave anytime they wanted?

Twotribes, you continually attempt to phrase the argument such that since the constitution did not explicitly permit secession then it must be illegal. However the boot is actually on the other foot. All rights are presumed to belong to the states unless they are explicitly ceded in the constitution. This rule is actually spelt out in Amendment Ten ie:"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."

Therefore since the constitution does not discuss the right of secession then that right was never given up by the states. End of story from a legal point of view.

LOL the South WAS treated in a friendly manner and the response was THEY attacked the North.

This is the crux of your argument. Since the southern states behaved in a manner of which you do not approve then you feel the Federal Government had no obligation to recognize their legal rights.

The aggressor here, notwithstanding the revisionist claims, was the South. The South not the North resorted to armed conflict. All Lincoln did is respond.

And in the process of responding he technically committed Treason.

ORIGINAL: Ivaces
Greyshaft - Let me ask you this, if the question before the house was "The Holocaust - right or wrong?" would you be satisfied by saying, well according to the laws of Germany in place in 1944 it was legal, so who are we to come around later and say it was wrong?

What a stupid and insulting analogy!!! I have pointed out on many occasions that I am discussing the law and NOT morality. We have Twotribes wrapping himself in the US Flag and declaring that because Lincoln was 'defending the Union' he was entitled to ignore the constitution and it is that approach which I am opposing. The morality of secession is a completely different issue.

Now we have your rather pointless jibe equating the Southern States with Nazi Germany and suggesting that my refusal to discuss morality of the secession issue puts me in the same category as an apologist for the Holocaust. I won't bother asking you for a retraction. Your analogy is so baseless that it collapses of its own accord. However in order to terminate that rather futile line of discussion I'll make it very clear for you.

• From a legal point of view I believe that the southern states had the right to secede.

• I have made no statement regarding whether they had a moral right to do so.

• From a legal point of view I do not know whether the government of Nazi Germany gave themselves the right to exterminate the jews. I haven't studied their laws.

• From a moral point of view I state that regardless of whether the Nazis were operating within a legal framework or not, their actions are morally inexcusable. I personally abhor the Holocaust and I believe that sentiment is shared by the overwhelming majority of people in this Forum.

Now can we get back to 1861?

[Mike Scholl]

"South Carolina didnt OWN the forts, they were Federal property. They were NOT State property. Using your logic we are back to Virginia demanding Washington DC back , Virginia and North Carolina demanding the states west of them back ( the territory oroiginal was part of those States. ect ect."


Couple of points. First, Washington DC is built on the Maryland side of the Potomac, and Maryland didn't succede. So your example is baseless and silly. And the Forts were "Federal Property" of a "federation" that no longer included the South after succession. As they were built on land originally given to the "federation" by the Southern States, and using tax money provided by the Southern States; there is a solid legal basis for assuming they would "revert" to the States when they left the "federation" (Union). The Northern case is weak because they voluntarily abandoned most of them without a struggle (or a formal surrender). The Confederacy was making no claim on any "federal property" except that which was built on land they had provided.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Be so kind as to show us ANY amendment proposal for the Constitution that included the language that the States could leave anytime they wanted?

{SNIP}
Twotribes, you continually attempt to phrase the argument such that since the constitution did not explicitly permit secession then it must be illegal. However the boot is actually on the other foot. All rights are presumed to belong to the states unless they are explicitly ceded in the constitution. This rule is actually spelt out in Amendment Ten ie:"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."

Therefore since the constitution does not discuss the right of secession then that right was never given up by the states. End of story from a legal point of view.
{SNIP}

BULLSEYE

[8D]

[lvaces]

Now we have your rather pointless jibe equating the Southern States with Nazi Germany and suggesting that my refusal to discuss morality of the secession issue puts me in the same category as an apologist for the Holocaust

Greyshaft - The point of the analogy is not that the South is like Nazi Germany (notice in no way does the question equate any part, person, or action of the south to Germany).  It is that something can be wrong without being illegal.  What is the title of the thread, is it "Secession, right or wrong?" or "Secession, legal or illegal?" Jonathan's opening post setting up the thread makes clear he is not talking only about legality (and in fact he specifically posted he approved of my question).  The question could have been asked exactly the same if the thread was "Vietnam War, right or wrong?" to someone who only wanted to talk about the legalities of the war and not its historical results or moral components (or have I sinned by now comparing the United States to Nazi Germany?). 

You want to only talk about the legalities, fine; but you do understand that to most people something can be wrong without being illegal?  The internal actions of Nazi Germany are the strongest example of this in history, so I pick them to illustrate this point.  You call the actions of Nazi Germany morally inexcusable.  You don't think that by the normal meaning of the word "wrong" almost everybody would then go ahead and also call them wrong?  But if you want a weaker analogy, fine here it is.  In a country where heroin is legal, a friend asks if him trying it would be right or wrong.  Even if it is legal, I would have no trouble telling him it is wrong and would not in anyway think I was misusing the word "wrong" in saying so.  I doubt if you would have trouble doing so either.  So why suddenly here are the practical results or moral components suddenly off the table and only the legality of the action matters?

I add that if anyone considers that my post was an attempt to say the south was like Hitler's Germany rather than just a strong attempt to show morality matters for "wrongness", let me state plainly that was not my intention or my feelings and certainly I retract it if I wrote my post in such an inartful manner to as to legitimately give that impression.  After all if I did consider that was true, I would have to throw away my Robert E. Lee t-shirt and I would hate to do that, him being a personal hero of mine.  I also add that of course I do not consider Greyshaft "in the same category as an apoligist for the holocaust".  If I did I assure you I would not bother asking him questions.  I was just trying to illustrate to him that morality is a part of what we usually call right or wrong, and hoping to get him to say something about the historical/practical/moral issues separate from the legal issues.  I actually thought he probably has some interesting and informative insights on those.  Needless to say, since he does not feel like sharing, I withdraw the attempt.   

[Tophat1815]

Secession,right or wrong?

To answer the question,well it was wrong.

Why?

Because like it or not a war was fought over this issue,the South LOST. And a way of life died along with it. Atleast a large group of people were freed and became citizens,even if many were not economically better off.
Legally the south may have had the right to leave the Union,but trial by combat didn't uphold that verdict.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

Let's consider two possible cases:

1. The US government was willing to consider letting the Confederates secede up to Fort Sumter. In this case, it should have realized that it would lose outposts such as Fort Sumter, and it should have appreciated that keeping soldiers in such outposts would be seen as an aggressive provocation. Cuba aside, countries don't normally tolerate foreign military outposts in their own territory.

2. The US government never had any intention of letting the Confederates secede. In this case, Fort Sumter was irrelevant: war was inevitable whatever the Confederates did (short of recanting their secessionist heresy).

Having said that, I do agree (and I've said before) that the Confederates played it all wrong and should have been impeccably peaceful for as long as possible. I suppose the best excuse for the war is indeed that the Confederates weren't easy people to be friendly with at the time; and indeed that helps to explain why the northern soldiers were willing to fight.

It's difficult to speculate what Lincoln would have done had the South played nice. As you say, war may have been inevitable. Both sides went into the war with too much enthusiasm. At least the North would have had a less tangible banner to rally around if Ft. Sumter hadn't been fired on. That is starting to get more moves down the hypothetical path than I can rationally provide arguments for.