Were the Southern States wrong to secede?

[John Jones]

All of the seceding states had to petition to rejoin the union. South Carolina, the first state to leave, was the last to be readmitted.

IIRC, Tennessee was the last to leave, and the first to be readmitted. It probably didn't hurt that Lincoln's successor Andrew Johnson was a Tennessean.

 

[Metullus]

As ugly as the war was, the question of the right of states to secede had to be settled at some point. Prior to the war it was an open question; after the war not so much.

 

[John Jones]

As ugly as the war was, the question of the right of states to secede had to be settled at some point. Prior to the war it was an open question; after the war not so much.

This.

 

[Thunder]

now, don't get me wrong folks. i do believe there is a time and place for secession.

i believe a district of Germany would have been right to secede after Hitler took power. I think parts of Russia would have been right to secede after the October Revolution.

but seceding because the national gov. is anti-human slavery? give me a **** ing break.

 

[John Jones]

now, don't get me wrong folks. i do believe there is a time and place for secession.

i believe a district of Germany would have been right to secede after Hitler took power. I think parts of Russia would have been right to secede after the October Revolution.

but seceding because the national gov. is anti-human slavery? give me a **** ing break.

No, you give me a break. Nobody is defending what happened 150 years ago - at least nobody on this thread.

You're not entitled to indulge in righteous indignation.

 

[drkitten]

Unless the constitution specifically says that once states join the union they may never leave, then the right to leave the union is reserved to the states. In legal terms, that seems pretty clear.

No.

This point was actually addressed as a matter of law by the Supreme Court; the most relevant case was in 1869 with Texas v. White (74 U.S. 700).

The Supreme Court held that as a matter of law, the Articles of Confederation declared the states to be joined in "perpetual" union and that the formation of a "more perfect Union" via the Constitution incorporated the indissolubility clause of the Articles.

In practice, we let them form a separate nation, then conquered that nation and added it to our territory.

I'm not sure what the difference "in practice" from defeating a rebel province militarily is from "allowing" the province to form a separate nation and then conquering it, but from a legal perspective, it's fairly clear -- to "allow" the separate nation to form would legitimize its authority to do things like dispose of its own property. That's more or less the legal question that forced SCOTUS to accept and decide Texas.

 

[autumn1971]

Their first loyalty was to their home state.

The majority of the officers of the Confederacy were trained at West Point, where they took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of The United States. They were then commissioned as officers into the armed forces of The United States.
These men were not only traitorous criminals, they were liars and oath-breakers.
It really pisses me off when I hear someone describe Robert E. Lee as "honorable."

 

[kmortis]

No.

This point was actually addressed as a matter of law by the Supreme Court; the most relevant case was in 1869 with Texas v. White (74 U.S. 700).

The Supreme Court held that as a matter of law, the Articles of Confederation declared the states to be joined in "perpetual" union and that the formation of a "more perfect Union" via the Constitution incorporated the indissolubility clause of the Articles.



I'm not sure what the difference "in practice" from defeating a rebel province militarily is from "allowing" the province to form a separate nation and then conquering it, but from a legal perspective, it's fairly clear -- to "allow" the separate nation to form would legitimize its authority to do things like dispose of its own property. That's more or less the legal question that forced SCOTUS to accept and decide Texas.

In RE: the OP though, that case comes 4-ish years after the Civil War ended. So that decision had little hold over Jefferson Davis et alia.

The actions of the aforementioned Mr. Davis & co. probably had a HUGE impact on the outcome of that case though....

 

[Loss Leader]

from a legal perspective, it's fairly clear

There really is no "legal" perspective here. The question of the right to secede, at least in the Civil War, was a political, not legal, one. Law really requires the undifferentiated will of the populace. Any time you can accurately divide opinions geographically, you're outside the realm of law and into politics. Another good sign that your question is political is if armies are shooting at each other.

This, of course, has no practical application. Law and politics are almost identical. Law is just a political argument that's already been won.

The majority of the officers of the Confederacy were trained at West Point,

Actually, only 306 West Point graduates fought for the Confederacy. The CSA had more Generals that that (401), let alone total officers. And the total men who fought for the Confederacy is probably somewhere around 1 million. That means that three-hundredths of one percent of those men had gone to West Point.

These men were not only traitorous criminals, they were liars and oath-breakers.

They had almost all sworn separate oaths to their home states. So, they honored one oath and dishonored another.

The mistake I think you're making is applying our modern conception of the union to Civil War times. Before the war, it was not at all decided that the we were Americans before we were citizens of our states. This is clear even in the way that the North fought the war. The Union army was composed almost entirely of state militias that operated as separate, coherent units. They fought under different flags and wore different uniforms (including New Yorkers who dressed like this).

It really pisses me off when I hear someone describe Robert E. Lee as "honorable."

Can you imagine capturing a foreign soldier today, asking him to sign a pledge not to fight you anymore, letting him go and then having him actually keep his promise, retire from military service and refuse to fight? Because Robert E. Lee actually took that pledge and lived by it. He also attempted to lead some of his battles from the front line. On more than one occassion, his troops had to physically force him to the rear. After the war, he appealed to Sotherners not to begin guerilla actions, but to put the war behind them and rejoin the union.

I would honestly be hard-pressed to think of a person who was more honorable.

 

[John Jones]

No.

This point was actually addressed as a matter of law by the Supreme Court; the most relevant case was in 1869 with Texas v. White (74 U.S. 700).

The Supreme Court held that as a matter of law, the Articles of Confederation declared the states to be joined in "perpetual" union and that the formation of a "more perfect Union" via the Constitution incorporated the indissolubility clause of the Articles.



I'm not sure what the difference "in practice" from defeating a rebel province militarily is from "allowing" the province to form a separate nation and then conquering it, but from a legal perspective, it's fairly clear -- to "allow" the separate nation to form would legitimize its authority to do things like dispose of its own property. That's more or less the legal question that forced SCOTUS to accept and decide Texas.

Didn't Texas have some special agreement when they joined the union that they could secede later if they chose?

 

[John Jones]

The majority of the officers of the Confederacy were trained at West Point, where they took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of The United States. They were then commissioned as officers into the armed forces of The United States.
These men were not only traitorous criminals, they were liars and oath-breakers.
It really pisses me off when I hear someone describe Robert E. Lee as "honorable."

Lee took an oath to protect and defend the state of Virginia too. They had conflicting loyalties. Some chose the union, some chose their home state.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Didn't all of the states first secede from their rightful government because they didn't like the taxes of said government?
Which just goes to show that what is considered right and just one time is considered horrible rebellion 60 years later.
your southern states TRIED to secede, they lost, hence they were wrong.

 

[John Jones]

No.

This point was actually addressed as a matter of law by the Supreme Court; the most relevant case was in 1869 with Texas v. White (74 U.S. 700).

The Supreme Court held that as a matter of law, the Articles of Confederation declared the states to be joined in "perpetual" union and that the formation of a "more perfect Union" via the Constitution incorporated the indissolubility clause of the Articles.

Even though Texas was never under the Articles of Confederation?

 

[John Jones]

Didn't all of the states first secede from their rightful government because they didn't like the taxes of said government?
Which just goes to show that what is considered right and just one time is considered horrible rebellion 60 years later.
your southern states TRIED to secede, they lost, hence they were wrong.

In 1862, Lincoln said that if he could preserve the union by freeing some or none of the slaves, that is what he would do to preserve the union. (paraphrasing)

Then came the Emancipation Proclamation a few months later.

 

[themusicteacher]

Unless the constitution specifically says that once states join the union they may never leave, then the right to leave the union is reserved to the states. In legal terms, that seems pretty clear. In practice, we let them form a separate nation, then conquered that nation and added it to our territory. I still don't see anything that specifically bans states from leaving, but the expectation of being reconquered puts a damper on that. Sometimes diplomacy is about who has the bigger stick, or who thinks their stick is bigger.

A

So are we a nation or aren't we? The Constitution was a correction of the Articles of Confederation, hence the "more perfect union" part. The bottom line is that the South felt as though they were having their "right" to own slaves impinged upon. So, they decided they should leave rather than having a right that never existed in the first place "taken" from them. They were wrong then and those who defend them are wrong now.

These neo-secessionists are no different. They take all the US government gives them but has no intention of fulfilling any responsibilities they incur by accepting what has been offered. If a guy like Rick Perry is serious about federal incursion into the rights of Texans to deny people health care insurance, he should ask all military and federal government personnel to leave, shut down all railroads and interstates and stop taking aid money from Washington.

 

[John Jones]

So are we a nation or aren't we? The Constitution was a correction of the Articles of Confederation, hence the "more perfect union" part. The bottom line is that the South felt as though they were having their "right" to own slaves impinged upon. So, they decided they should leave rather than having a right that never existed in the first place "taken" from them. They were wrong then and those who defend them are wrong now.

These neo-secessionists are no different. They take all the US government gives them but has no intention of fulfilling any responsibilities they incur by accepting what has been offered. If a guy like Rick Perry is serious about federal incursion into the rights of Texans to deny people health care insurance, he should ask all military and federal government personnel to leave, shut down all railroads and interstates and stop taking aid money from Washington.

Is this a neo-secessionist thread?

I'm not excusing slavery or the secession of the southern states, but slavery was recognized by the US Constitution. The same constitution that was ratified on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.

 

[drkitten]

Didn't Texas have some special agreement when they joined the union that they could secede later if they chose?

Nope. Urban legend.

 

[drkitten]

Even though Texas was never under the Articles of Confederation?

Yes. (Again, this was addressed in the court case.) Because the Constitution itself was indissoluble (as inherited from the AoC) and Texas adhered to the Constitution.

 

[John Jones]

Nope. Urban legend.

OK then.

I'm not a Texan anyway.

 

[themusicteacher]

Is this a neo-secessionist thread?

I'm not excusing slavery or the secession of the southern states, but slavery was recognized by the US Constitution. The same constitution that was ratified on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line.

I will give you that point.