Secession, right or wrong?

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Gentlemen (and ladies if any),

There have been repeated and understandable complaints that another thread in this forum ("Did the South have any chance of victory?") was taken over by arguments about the rights and wrongs of secession. As that argument still seems to be rumbling slightly, I'll try opening a new thread for it. People who want to talk about it can do so here, and people who hate even to read about it can ignore this thread from now on.

I don't believe I have any vested interest in the subject of secession. I'm British and I've hardly ever set foot in America. However, I've lived in many different parts of Europe and Africa, and I'm rootless. For me personally, secession isn't worth the trouble. If I seriously dislike the country I'm living in, I look for another country. That I can do by myself without having to persuade or fight other people.

However, as a matter of principle, the right to secede seems valid to me. If most of the people in a large region want out of their country, it seems unreasonable to expect them to move out en masse (perhaps millions of people!). They have their homes and businesses in which they've invested; they have their neighbours and their neighbourhoods; they may have a sentimental attachment to their own countryside; why shouldn't they keep all this, but just elect themselves a new government that will govern them in a way more to their own liking?

As for the land they're sitting on, no-one created that land, so I don't think anyone has a real moral claim to own it.

Goodwin has proposed that "the nature of democracy forbids secession. In order for democracy to work, all must agree to accept majority rule. If secession were acceptable, there could be no true democracy, for the minority could always simply leave whenever the majority voted for something they did not like."

This is not so. In most cases, people with minority opinions are scattered all over the country and can't feasibly secede. Secession is feasible only when the dissenting minority constitutes a substantial majority in one region; and when their disagreement with the rest of the country is so important to them that it outweighs the benefits of remaining united.

I ask what is the point of democracy? Surely, it's so that people who are obliged for practical reasons to share a country with each other can resolve their differences and reach decisions on important matters.

If they're not obliged to share a country with each other -- if they can feasibly separate -- then why not do so, if it enables both sides to get their own way simultaneously?

Some people seem to argue that the outcome of the Civil War proves that the Unionists were right and that secession was wrong. I don't see how it proves anything of the sort. It proves that the North was stronger than the South; that's all.

When Europeans discovered America, they started to settle there. People were living there already, but the new arrivals killed them and took their lands. They were wrong to do that, but they were very successful. Did their success prove that they were in the right? No, it just proved that they were stronger than the people they conquered (and also, incidentally, the bringers of diseases to which the natives had no resistance).

Perhaps this topic is too serious a subject for a game forum. If so, presumably someone is in charge of this forum and can close this discussion.

[Hard Sarge]

For me personally, secession isn't worth the trouble. If I seriously dislike the country I'm living in, I look for another country. That I can do by myself without having to persuade or fight other people.

been trying to stay out of this to begin with, but this statement is part of the trouble with the posts

this is still hindsight and modern day thinking, to what was going on in the past, it was not so easy to just up and leave and start over, not to mention the feelings of the people at the time, a lot of them were locked into there states, there land

besides the fact that both sides thought they were right

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey
Some people seem to argue that the outcome of the Civil War proves that the Unionists were right and that secession was wrong. I don't see how it proves anything of the sort. It proves that the North was stronger than the South; that's all.

heh... heh... good answer [;)]

There is ample evidence that a number of the states only agreed to join the union on the understanding that they retained the right to secede.

The problem came when they tried to exercise that right and the remaining states ("the north") said that the right to secede was only valid when all the other states agreed that the secession was justified. After the war the north illegally forced through a change to the constitution so that the citizenship of a state was considered inferior to citizenship of the usa ie. the Federal government had first call on a citizen's loyalty.

The us constitution is an agreement between states to form a federal union (like the swiss and the australians and many other nations). It has good points and bad points and one of its bad points was that the law on secession was vaguely worded (or completely absent if you prefer!) So you can blame the war on the people who wrote the constitution - if the constitution had been clearer on secession then maybe the war would never had been fought.[:D]

A subtle point touching on your quote from Goodwin - the USA is a collection of states not of people. In 1860 the people did not advise the Union they were leaving. The southern states held conventions etc and upon determining the will of their citizens each of those southern states took the decision to leave the union.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

Yes, I understand that the 19th century was different from the 21st, but most of my message was not specifically about the 19th century. The right to independence is an issue for all times; it's currently very topical in the Balkans, and even somewhat topical in Spain, where I live.

So yes, I agree that it was more difficult to change countries in the 19th century than it is now (although plenty of people did so, even then). But that part of my message was just to explain my own personal background: where I'm coming from. I certainly don't come from the 19th century. (I may be old, but I'm not that old.)

[Mike Scholl]

[center]

Secession, right or wrong?

[/center]

The history of Civilization is full of successions of one group of people or area from the rule of another. Empires rise and fall, migrations march, and peoples revolt. If they didn't, "Ur of the Chaldees would be a mighty crowded place by now." If succession weren't "right". then all of South America would still be part of Spain or Portugal, Greece would still be part of Turkey, and the Ukraine part of Russia. But in history, it is ONLY "right" when you can get away with it. If you get "stomped flat", as the Romans did to the Jews. or the Turks did to the Armenians. or the Northern States did to the South, then it must have been "wrong".

"Might makes Right" is a cliche with a great deal of truth in it. Did the Indians have a right to the land they had been living in for generations? Probably..., but it wasn't going to do them any good as long as they remained a bunch of backwards "New Stone Age" barbarians who were great at fighting, but lousy at war. Did the South have the right to "opt out' of the Union? Constitutionally..., but it wasn't going to do them any good as long as their more numerous Northern "bretheren" were determined to deny them that right. "Right or Wrong" is probably the wrong question. Strong or weak comes closer to the point.

[Hard Sarge]

Yes, I understand, but most of these posts are still putting modern thoughts into how they should of been thinking back then

the same came be used in the little Mac posts, now, he is a idiot and a poor Army Commander, but that hindsight and modern thinking, at the time, he was the best they had, until they found out he couldn't react under pressure

but over all, the reasons behind the war are much more complex then just state rights or freeing the Slaves

[Twotribes]

You are confusing two seperate issues.

Does the Constitution allow states to freely leave the Union?

And Do the people have the right to rebel? ( well maybe not right)

The Constitution is clear. The Federal Government has always been supreme over the States. Article and clause through out clearly state this principle. The document is worthless if any State or local Government that disagrees with the majority has the right to just leave the Union. All the enumerated powers of the Federal Government are in fact pointless and worthless if a Local or State Government can simply quit the Union.

As to the second question, obviously if enough people think a rebellion is in order, it will happen, I believe some have claimed as few as 3 percent of a population is enough to rebel. No arguement about people rebelling. BUT they dont have a leg to stand on, in the case of the Civil War, for the claims they made as to why they seperated.

They did not have an inherient right to leave, and the US Government had done NOTHING to obstruct or prevent the States from exersizing their power and rights under the Constitution. In fact the US Government had ENFORCED the rights of the Southern States over the rights of the Northern States.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
You are confusing two separate issues.

I don't think so. In this thread I haven't mentioned either of the issues that you mention. In fact, I mentioned North America only in passing. Most of what I said applies worldwide.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
The Constitution is clear.

There seems to have been quite a lot of disagreement about this clear document. In fact, the Supreme Court seems to exist at least partly for the purpose of deciding what it means...

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
The document is worthless if any State or local Government that disagrees with the majority has the right to just leave the Union. All the enumerated powers of the Federal Government are in fact pointless and worthless if a Local or State Government can simply quit the Union.

I don't think so. The Union, like any other association, presumably provides benefits to its members (otherwise, what is it for?). The benefits give members an incentive to obey the rules and pay the fees. There's something wrong with any association that has to coerce its own members to prevent them from leaving.

But I'm not hinting that there's anything unusually wrong with the USA in this respect. It's a general defect of governments everywhere. Sigh.

Mind you, the British government has been relatively benevolent in this respect from the 20th century onwards. Most of the Empire was let go with no fuss, and I believe England would probably let Wales and Scotland go if they voted for it. As for Northern Ireland, if it voted to secede from the UK I imagine Britain would be delighted...

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
If succession weren't "right". then all of South America would still be part of Spain or Portugal, Greece would still be part of Turkey, and the Ukraine part of Russia. But in history, it is ONLY "right" when you can get away with it. If you get "stomped flat", as the Romans did to the Jews. or the Turks did to the Armenians. or the Northern States did to the South, then it must have been "wrong".

"Might makes Right" is a cliche with a great deal of truth in it. Did the Indians have a right to the land they had been living in for generations? Probably..., but it wasn't going to do them any good as long as they remained a bunch of backwards "New Stone Age" barbarians who were great at fighting, but lousy at war. Did the South have the right to "opt out' of the Union? Constitutionally..., but it wasn't going to do them any good as long as their more numerous Northern "brethren" were determined to deny them that right. "Right or Wrong" is probably the wrong question. Strong or weak comes closer to the point.

You seem to be saying, "To hell with morality, all that matters is success." Well, it's a point of view. But it doesn't leave us with much to talk about. Would you also say that individual burglars, rapists, murderers, etc. are "right" if they get away with it?

[andysomers]

Two sides vehemently stick to the belief they are right (the Crown in the US revolution vs. the American colonies, the Union vs. secessionists in the ACW).  The winning side makes the rules and decides what is right and wrong.
 
If you always belive in secession, then we have a US separating from England, then a CS separating from the US (and quite possibly some of the individual states then breaking off from the CS).  If you always are against secession, then God Save the Queen.  Fact is, this war was a "rebellion" by both sides from which the other separated.  It will always be a "rebellion" by one side and a mere "separation" by the other.  Is revolution ever consitutionally guaranteed, or "right?"  Were the Colonies "right" and the Confederates "wrong" - when both essentially did the same thing?  All in perspective. The victor (a.k.a. the "Mightiest") determines that (i.e. who is "rightest"), not the Court, not the President/King/Premier, etc.  In war, Might very well indeed makes Right.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Palfrey

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
If succession weren't "right". then all of South America would still be part of Spain or Portugal, Greece would still be part of Turkey, and the Ukraine part of Russia. But in history, it is ONLY "right" when you can get away with it. If you get "stomped flat", as the Romans did to the Jews. or the Turks did to the Armenians. or the Northern States did to the South, then it must have been "wrong".

"Might makes Right" is a cliche with a great deal of truth in it. Did the Indians have a right to the land they had been living in for generations? Probably..., but it wasn't going to do them any good as long as they remained a bunch of backwards "New Stone Age" barbarians who were great at fighting, but lousy at war. Did the South have the right to "opt out' of the Union? Constitutionally..., but it wasn't going to do them any good as long as their more numerous Northern "brethren" were determined to deny them that right. "Right or Wrong" is probably the wrong question. Strong or weak comes closer to the point.

You seem to be saying, "To hell with morality, all that matters is success." Well, it's a point of view. But it doesn't leave us with much to talk about. Would you also say that individual burglars, rapists, murderers, etc. are "right" if they get away with it?

Historically speaking, yes. Would anyone have paid attention to the ideals of the French Revolution if the "levee en masse" armies HADN'T been able to turn back the armies of the various monarchies? Did Rome spread her Empire to inflict morality on her opponants? Morality is a nice thing to have in an opponant. As someone pointed out to Theodore Roosevelt when he was shoving the Panama Canal through all opposition; "You shouldn't let such a magnificent achievement be tainted by morality." Historical success does not go hand-in-hand with morality. Ever hear of Joseph Stalin? Ghengiz Khan?

As to burglars, etc; you are being facecious. Such individuals are criminals, and they are not seeking International Recognition and support as a legitimate state. Terrorists MIGHT make such a claim..., but that's a different kettle of fish.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Historical success does not go hand-in-hand with morality. Ever hear of Joseph Stalin? Ghengiz Khan?

Sure, and that's the point I was trying to make. Success and morality are two independent variables, and it makes sense to talk about them separately. You're presumably saying here that Stalin and Genghis were immoral but successful, in which case you do recognize a distinction between morality and success after all.

When people say that "secession is wrong", I take it that they mean immoral in some way, so I approach the argument from a moral point of view. Obviously, it's not necessarily unsuccessful: sometimes it works. So far, secession has worked once and failed once in North America.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
As to burglars, etc; you are being facecious.

Not really. I'm admittedly unusual in this, but I think governments ought to be judged by the same moral standards as individuals. Of course, they don't look good when judged in that way; but so be it.
[/quote]

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: andysomers
The winning side makes the rules and decides what is right and wrong.

And do you accept that verdict? Personally, I make up my own mind what I consider right and wrong.

Of course, I'm a mere individual and I have to cope with the world as it is -- shaped by the victors of every conflict. But at least I have the freedom of my own opinions about it.

[Twotribes]

Governments are neither moral or immoral. They dont have friends and they dont act as Individuals act. Perfect example, it is murder if an Individual decides to shot someone dead and claim their house, mass murder if they kill a whole community. It is NOT murder if a country goes to war, killing how ever many people it takes to accomplish its goal and that can and does include taking other peoples homes and property.

An Individual is a bully if they force others to do as they want, a Government is simply promoting the greater good for the Society when it does it.

A person can have 2 sets of beliefs, and should one for personal behavior and morals and one for the conduct of the Government.

When I argue that the South had no legal right to quit the Union it has nothing to do with morals or right and wrong. It has to do with law and the responsibility of the Government and those Governed.

laws and Governments are worthless if people can just decide " damn, I dont like that" and quit the Government or ignore the law.

Rebellions are neither right nor wrong they just are. BUT one can not compare The US rebellion against Britian and the US Civil War in the same way. Britian gave the Colonies NO representation at all in the greater Government. Ohh sure they let the Colonies have local Governments, but th people had NO representation at all in England, the King and parliment could simply ignore, supercede or change any local law they chose with NO input from the people.

In fact the Colonies would not have revolted ( rather they wouldnt have had the numbers needed) if England and given them representation.

The Civil war the South was FULLY represented in the US Government. They had the same rights, privaleges and responsibilities as every other citizen and State in the Union. The Government was in fact forcing Northern States to follow the laws of the Southern States on slavery and apprehension of runaway slaves. The official policy of the Government was that a non slave State could only be admitted to the Union if a Slave State was also admitted ( as I recall)

Lincoln may have tried to change that BUT he would have needed the consent of a majority in Congress where the South was duely represented to have accomplished it.

And when the South split, Lincoln tried his damndest to avoid a shooting war, he didnt even raise an army till AFTER the south attacked Federal Forts in the South.

[anarchyintheuk]

Random observations:

1) Never join an organization if there isn't a procedure to leave it.

2) Secession is more easily accomplished when a substantial percentage of your population is not only unable to vote against such a measure, but is only considered property.

3) A person may have an inherent right to chose or fight for the government that they live under, but the other guy does too.

4) If you fight against the other guy, don't lose.

[Paper Tiger]

Couple of things for you Yanks (north and south) to consider.
The American Revolution against the British, the British were pretty much the only power in the world at the time that practiced any form of democracy (honourable mention must go to Holland)
One big factor in the revolution was very definately the movement of Britain towards the abolition of slavery. It was already becoming a big issue in Britain proper and a couple of the signitories of the Declaration of Indipendance were present in London during one of the turning point trials at the Old Bailey where the laws were being tested to see if Slavery was legal under the English common law, (It wasn't but the judge kind of fudged the issue to not set a precident while still freeing the slave.)
The movements towards then abolishing slavery were under way and the freeing of slaves in the USA by the British during the Revolution kind of puts a different gloss on things from the point of view of anyone who has African ancestory.
Had the British won the war slavery would have effectively ended nearly 100 years earlier in the USA.
So the USA has had two wars which substantially involved the abolition of slavery. The slave owners won one and lost the second.  

[RERomine]

In and of itself, secession is not wrong. It is nothing more than withdrawing from some organization, group or in this case country. The reasons behind secession have to be explored. Those can be "right" or "wrong" only from the perspective of the viewer. Obviously, to the one who would secede, the reasons are always "right", else why secede. To the country seceded from, the view can be variable:

1. It might be viewed as "wrong" and the parent nation react with hostility.
2. The parent country might also feel it's "wrong" because the provide economic and military protection to the break away section but are content to let them go.
3. And as mentioned earlier, the parent country might believe secession is "right" and is happy to see the section "leave".

Outsiders are only going to voice strong opinions in the first instance. If the scope of this thread is the secession of the Southern states, we are all outsiders. Some are geographical outsiders, but all of us are outsiders because of time. Much of this happened 145 years ago and the roots are much older. No one can know how strong the emotions were in 1861. We can read the words, but even time has softened the emotions.

"Remember Pearl Harbor!"

Anyone read that and feel a sudden stir of emotion? Probably not. And that was only 65 years ago. The point is how can we truly say the South was right or wrong by their action, especially so far removed from it? We can analyze the issues behind their decision, but not how desperate they felt. The only thing certain is they felt secession was right for them.

[Jonathan Palfrey]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
It is NOT murder if a country goes to war, killing how ever many people it takes to accomplish its goal and that can and does include taking other peoples homes and property.

An Individual is a bully if they force others to do as they want, a Government is simply promoting the greater good for the Society when it does it.

A person can have 2 sets of beliefs, and should one for personal behavior and morals and one for the conduct of the Government.

I thought you were being serious for a moment! Nice one.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Laws and Governments are worthless if people can just decide " damn, I dont like that" and quit the Government or ignore the law.

But immoral laws and governments should be ignored or disobeyed. If you consider extreme cases, that should be obvious.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Britain gave the Colonies NO representation at all in the greater Government.

It was stupid not to do so. Consider: in 1770 the colonies had a population of about two million, while Britain (not counting Ireland) had a population of nine or ten million. The colonies with full voting rights could have been easily outvoted on any divisive matter. And, with full voting rights, they could have been asked to pay full British taxes. As it was, they paid hardly any tax compared with people in Britain.

ORIGINAL: Twotribes
The Civil war the South was FULLY represented in the US Government. They had the same rights, privaleges and responsibilities as every other citizen and State in the Union. The Government was in fact forcing Northern States to follow the laws of the Southern States on slavery and apprehension of runaway slaves. The official policy of the Government was that a non slave State could only be admitted to the Union if a Slave State was also admitted ( as I recall)

Lincoln may have tried to change that BUT he would have needed the consent of a majority in Congress where the South was duely represented to have accomplished it.

And when the South split, Lincoln tried his damndest to avoid a shooting war, he didnt even raise an army till AFTER the south attacked Federal Forts in the South.

Yes, I'm aware of all that.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Governments are neither moral or immoral. They dont have friends and they dont act as Individuals act. Perfect example, it is murder if an Individual decides to shot someone dead and claim their house, mass murder if they kill a whole community. It is NOT murder if a country goes to war, killing how ever many people it takes to accomplish its goal and that can and does include taking other peoples homes and property.

This is starting to get off topic yet again but ....
Though I largely agree with your post I disagree with this part. I think you're splitting hairs a bit too thin. A government's morality is dictated by the people who lead the government. Governments can be good, evil, righteous, stubborn, murderous and a whole host of other adjectives that you can apply to a person. It's simply a transitive property.

[Paper Tiger]

Fully agree the colonies should have been given full voting rights, and had they seriously lobbied for them I am fairly sure that they would have had plenty of support in England as well. The only fly in that ointment is the amount of time it took to get from the USA to England at the time. Of course there may have been some worries regarding adding all the other colonies and the fact that many of the citizens spoke no more English than half the royal family.
 
Of course a hundred and fifty years later numerous British commonwealth countries seceeded bloodlessly and with the blessing of the mother country.