Were the Southern States wrong to secede?

[mijopaalmc]

Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris might be of interest here:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

It simultaneously acknowledge the existence of an entity called "the Unisted States", but designates those ennumerated in the treaty "to be free sovereign and independent states", so there is some indication that the major international powers were at least not clear on how to conceive of the conversion of some of the colonies in British North America into self-governing entities.

 

[Loss Leader]

there is some indication that the major international powers were at least not clear on how to conceive of the conversion of some of the colonies

I'm sure they weren't. I'm amazed the entire Treaty of Paris isn't scrawled diagonally across the back of a A&P receipt, "Just do whatever you want. We honestly don't care anymore."

 

[drkitten]

You missed my point, they were independent from each other, not from England. And King Geo didn't do the day to day ruling, that was the job of the Govenors, that pesky trans-Atlantic travel and all that.

By that argument, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are "independent," since they don't rule each other -- and have their own mayors and whatnot who handle the day-to-day ruling instead of being under the direct personal rule of the Governor. Of course, in the Real World, they're both just cities in Pennsylvania.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If the United States voided a contract with the South, why didn't Georgia reassert its territorial claim to parts of Alabama and Mississippi? And why didn't North Carolina do the same for Kentucky?

 

[Belz...]

Colony and independent don't tend to go together.

I don't remember everything about the American Revolution, but I'm fairly certain "damn all this independence" wasn't one of their slogans...

Uh-huh, but why did they call it a "union" after they got their independence ?

 

[GreyArea]

I'm amazed the entire Treaty of Paris isn't scrawled diagonally across the back of a A&P receipt...

That would probably be a Tesco receipt.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I know that someone has already mentioned the issue of federal lands already, but I think that it worth revisiting.

What the people who are arguing that Confederacy was only defending itself seem not to consider is that vast swathes of the Confederacy were established on land that was first given to the federal government of the United States and the organized into states. Thus, even if the organic acts and enabling acts could be sensibly considered contracts between the federal government and the people in the territory so organized or enabled and if the federal government could be determined to have voided those contracts for whatever reason, the land that was formerly occupied by those states reverts back to direct federal control. In other words, even if the people of Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Tennessee, Lousiana, Arkansas, and Missouri no longer desired to be part of the Union, they still occupied land that was internationally recognized as being part of the United States and, in the event of the dissolution of the states thereon, belonging directly to the federal government, therefore making those land illegally occupied by a hostile foreign force.

 

[Oystein]

I know that someone has already mentioned the issue of federal lands already, but I think that it worth revisiting.

What the people who are arguing that Confederacy was only defending itself seem not to consider is that vast swathes of the Confederacy were established on land that was first given to the federal government of the United States and the organized into states. Thus, even if the organic acts and enabling acts could be sensibly considered contracts between the federal government and the people in the territory so organized or enabled and if the federal government could be determined to have voided those contracts for whatever reason, the land that was formerly occupied by those states reverts back to direct federal control. In other words, even if the people of Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Tennessee, Lousiana, Arkansas, and Missouri no longer desired to be part of the Union, they still occupied land that was internationally recognized as being part of the United States and, in the event of the dissolution of the states thereon, belonging directly to the federal government, therefore making those land illegally occupied by a hostile foreign force.

Calling the entire domestic population of a territory "a hostile foreign force" is sophism squared.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Calling the entire domestic population of a territory "a hostile foreign force" is sophism squared.

That misses the point entirely: those in power in the state had broken away from the United States governement, had raised an army against the United States, and were occupying territory that was recognized by international treaty to belong to the United States.

That sounds like justification for the United States to take militey action, regardless in the people who had voted for secession felt that the federal government had voided a contract with them.

 

[Oystein]

Has anybody in this thread tried to argue from first and legal priciples?

What rights do territories and populations have in general concerning the formation and change of sovereign states?

It seems to be universally accepted that states may unite peacefully, whether through marriage of royals, international treaties, or bilateral treaties. More often, of course, uniting a territory to an existing one is done by some measure of force or threat.
The other way around seems to enjoy much less ageement: There are few instances that I can think of where a territory broke off from a larger state on entirely peaceful terms.

The only recent example I can think of was the Slovaks splitting off from Czechoslovakia in 1992.

So: Were the Slovaks right to split from the Union?
I think, they did not have very good reasons. I believe, rationally, that the Slovaks would be better off had they stayed with the Czechs. BUT the decision was there, and who is to tell a people what they must and must not do?
I think the Czechs, led by prime minister Vaclav Klaus, were wise to let the Slovaks, led by Vladimir Meciar.

I am not an expert on that bit of history, but my personal impression from those years was that the Slovaks were mainly led by pure nationalism, and a feeling of cultural inferiority within the union (Czech metropolis Prague greatly outshone Bratislava, for example). So their reasons to secede were not good, but they had a right to, and it wasn't worth the trouble to send in the troops.
There was, however, no referendum on the question.


The "Velvet Secession" contrasts with the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia and the breakup of the USSR into an assortment of sometimes authoritarian states.



So: Were the Confederate States wrong to secede? The wording is odd. It is more relevant to ask "Did they hav (or should they have had) the right to secede?"

I don't think secession was primarily about slavery. That became a focal point because it was a current issue. But the South might arguably have sought secession even if the North had still stuck to slavery. After all, when the Founding Fathers envisaged a better Union a mere 80 years before, where every man was endowed with inalienable rights, among them liberty, it went without saying that "darkies" were of course not meant. It occurs to me to be anachronistic to argue this topic from today's evaluation of slavery. What is chrystal clear to us today wasn't so back then. Some Southerners argues that their "darkies" would be better off under the benevolent care of gentle masters than they would be fending for themselves - and in many cases they probably were even right.

 

[Oystein]

That misses the point entirely: those in power in the state had broken away from the United States governement, had raised an army against the United States, and were occupying territory that was recognized by international treaty to belong to the United States.

That sounds like justification for the United States to take militey action, regardless in the people who had voted for secession felt that the federal government had voided a contract with them.

They were not occupying that territory, they were living in it.
They had not raised an army against the US, they had raised a militia to defend the state. It was not the South that started a war against the North, it was the North that invaded the South.

 

[mijopaalmc]

They were not occupying that territory, they were living in it.
They had not raised an army against the US, they had raised a militia to defend the state. It was not the South that started a war against the North, it was the North that invaded the South.

What part of "they were living on land adminstered and owned by a nation that the had actively chosen not to be a part of and had formed a government therein that was hostile to the government that rightfully owned and adminstered the land they were living on" do you not understand?

By the way, the South started the war when they fired upon Fort Sumpter, a United States military outpost that the South acknowledged was legitimately part of the Unites States and that the United States had a right to resupply.

 

[drkitten]

It was not the South that started a war against the North, it was the North that invaded the South.

Ever hear of Ft. Sumter?

Explain to me again how the North "invaded" the South and forced them to fire on Ft. Sumter?

 

[drkitten]

Has anybody in this thread tried to argue from first and legal priciples?

What rights do territories and populations have in general concerning the formation and change of sovereign states?

None.

That's simple. Sovereign states are sovereign and have total and absolute control over their territory and population unless they're either defeated by force main or voluntarily accept some sort of limitation through a treaty with another sovereign state.

That's why the doctrine of "sovereign immunity" exists, even under US law.

 

[TraneWreck]

I don't think secession was primarily about slavery. That became a focal point because it was a current issue. But the South might arguably have sought secession even if the North had still stuck to slavery. After all, when the Founding Fathers envisaged a better Union a mere 80 years before, where every man was endowed with inalienable rights, among them liberty, it went without saying that "darkies" were of course not meant. It occurs to me to be anachronistic to argue this topic from today's evaluation of slavery. What is chrystal clear to us today wasn't so back then. Some Southerners argues that their "darkies" would be better off under the benevolent care of gentle masters than they would be fending for themselves - and in many cases they probably were even right.

Yeah, that's just wrong.

I would recommend reading the Republican party platform from 1860 or any on the Confederate secession declarations. The single most important issue to secession (in the same sense that the Earth is the single most important planet in our solar system to life) was slavery. Nothing else is even remotely close. All of the other "grievances" were sub-categories of the slavery strife.

 

[Loss Leader]

Explain to me again how the North "invaded" the South and forced them to fire on Ft. Sumter?

Two words: False Flag.

 

[Oystein]

Ever hear of Ft. Sumter?

Explain to me again how the North "invaded" the South and forced them to fire on Ft. Sumter?

Can you point out to me, please, what state Fort Sumter is located in?
Thanks.

 

[TraneWreck]

Can you point out to me, please, what state Fort Sumter is located in?
Thanks.

Can you point out what country that state was located in as well as to which country the troops in the fort belonged?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Can you point out to me, please, what state Fort Sumter is located in?
Thanks.

*Yawn*

The South acknowledged the right of the North to resupply Fort Sumter and the fired upon the ships resupplying it.

By the way, although I not sure how commonplace it was for foreign powers to have military installations in other foreign countries in the mid 19th century, it is not uncommon in the contemporary world, but it notheless be considered an act of war for a hostile foreing government to attack any US military insiallation on their soil.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, it wasn't until after the Civil War that the united States of America became the United States of America.

That's a bit of a myth. See War of 1812. "The United States are" usage was common, as was the sentiment.

This point is brought forward with substantiation in Six Frigates.

Worth a read. Good book on that period, both for politics and naval/defense/budget/states versus gov't/Democract vs Federalists matters: