Did the Southern U.S. have the right to secede?

In 1861, several of the American States (all of them in the deep South) seceded from the United States. Their reason for seceding was that they resented the Federal government's ability to overrule State government's, mainly over the issue of slavery. This started the American Civil War, which ended with the Southern U.S. being forced back into the country. The question: did the South have the moral and/or legal right to secede, and did the Federal government have the moral and/or legal right to go to war to stop them?

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

Well, overlooking the South's right to secede, the CSA did invade several Western and border states, so the Union, arguably, was defending from foreign invasion.

"Urge to thump... rising." -Fighteer

That argument only work if the Union haven't annexed CSA in the end.

edited 5th Nov '12 5:08:10 AM by Heatth

There was no way it was happening without some sort of fight, really. But no, I don't think they really did. Not legally, certainly not morally considering they wanted to keep a corrupt system in place.

While I agree there is no way this could have happened pacifically. I don't see how they didn't have the moral right to secede. Assuming the population of that area wanted the secession*

, then there is no reason for they not having the right to do so. The same in every other place in the world.

Whether it would be better for them or not, however, is another discussion.

Well, initially at least. But, also, back then if countries soundly beat other countries as the USA had the CSA, they could generally do whatever they wanted with impunity. Rules of war weren't as concrete back then.

edited 4th Nov '12 4:01:16 PM by DirectorCannon

"Urge to thump... rising." -Fighteer

Did they have the right to secede? Honestly I guess they kind of did. I can't think of a reason why not. Now, that doesn't mean I think the Union wasn't justified in being pissed off and invading them as a result.

edited 4th Nov '12 4:06:45 PM by Kostya

Eh, legally maybe. I don't the constitution said anything about secession did it?

Morally, I believe any group of people has the right to secede from a government they feel does not represent their interests appropriately. Which, given the total lack of support for Lincoln in the south with him still winning, they had a pretty good case for.

Fight smart, not fair.

@ Heath: They were having issues over the implications of slavery, which is what I mean by corrupt system. Hell, the whole Bloody Kansas thing was over that, and free states and slave states trying to maintain dominance by sending people there and some radicals stirring up a hell of a lot of trouble. And that was before the point it got to full out war! There's also the fact that the population of slaves weren't exactly being given a choice in the matter.

Meanwhile, everyone failed at finding a way to replace slavery as an economic system, which might have prevented the whole thing. (I do say "might") Without anything to replace that economic system, which would upset everything, Southerners didn't much like the thought of changing. The acquisition of the Southwest territories didn't do much to soothe Northerner's concerns about the slave system expanding. (Which is laughable now because we know those areas simply can't support such expansive farming economies.) And there's a whole lot of other things I'm forgetting right now that are on the tip top of my brain.

And what of the slaves who simply had no voice in the matter at all? All the South's reasons were bunk in the end.

That the slavery issue would tear the US apart soon was one of the most accurate predictions any of the Founding Fathers ever made.

edited 4th Nov '12 4:08:11 PM by AceofSpades

Something to bear in mind is that in South Carolina, the first state to secede, slaves made up 57% of the population. While I'm sure that, if you searched high and low, you might have found a slave who supported secession, I'm gonna assume the overwhelming majority opposed it. So at least for that state, the notion that secession represented the will of the people is only true if you accept the notion that black people's opinions didn't matter.

Of course, Northern states didn't let black people vote, either, at the time, so them fighting the South could be seen as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

However, there's also something to be said for the idea that, if a country's borders are going to change, then the whole country needs to decide on it, not just one region. I mean, if you grant people the right to unilaterally secede, couldn't one person just declare their home a sovereign nation?

On the other hand, at the time Southerners would have told you that they were already living in separate countries, and the Federal government was only supposed to be a loose international organization.

edited 4th Nov '12 4:49:38 PM by RavenWilder

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

Morally, they did not. The constitution of the CSA ideologically supported slavery, unlike the United States itself, which had it for purely economical reasons and abandoned it as soon as it stopped being profitable.

Article I Section 9(4) of the CSA Constitution also takes the right to restrict slavery away from the states. Meaning that they were not protecting the rights of their states, they were restricting them to protect their own backwards and inefficient economic system. I'm fairly sure (I can't remember where I read this) that they also had plans to invade Latin America.

They didn't annex everything. The CSA never existed; it was never officially recognized and it wasn't a nation.

edited 4th Nov '12 5:54:05 PM by CPFMfan

...

I believe Raven just nailed this thread down and stuck it to the wall of his/her trophy room. Kind of wish I'd posted earlier because I wanted to express something like the same sentiment, but darned if I wouldn't have said it as well, anyway.

You cannot talk about the Civil War's attempted secession without talking about slavery, and it bugs me whenever people try to do so.

edited 4th Nov '12 4:46:26 PM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

Nobody has really put forward a concrete argument against succession, short of declaring the U.S. a kind of clingy gym membership you can't cancel at will.

Contrary to what you hear, there were plenty of northerners who were happy to see the south go, including Sec. State Seward, arguably more powerful than the VP by that point.

Ultimately the war was caused by bumbling idiots in Washington and dishonest generals. But the aim of the war wasn't altruistic, it was just a power game.

I'm a skeptical squirrel

They also, rather hypocritically, made it illegal for any state that joined them to secede from the CSA themselves!

Nobodies managed to put up a concrete argument for succession either, besides it was the will of the white people.

Also the VP has always (excluding Cheney) been a weak, near powerless position.

Neither has Slavery.

edited 4th Nov '12 8:40:59 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Well, admittedly I'm biased against nation states — I don't think they've been kind to the human race.

I'm a skeptical squirrel

Johnny, you're putting an argument in abstract terms. Specific, individual revolutions in history have causes that are, in and of themselves, morally defensible or morally indefensible. Attempting to justify the ability to revolt in the abstract just detaches the discussion from the actual historical event that's being talked about.

edited 4th Nov '12 5:08:52 PM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

Honestly, the answer to that is this: If the USA had "the right" to revolt against the British Empire, due to things they thought to be important for themselves but clearly not to the British, and form their own nation. Then it stands that the CSA had "the right" to revolt against the USA for reasons they believed important but the USA disagreed with, and form their own nation.

Success(or defeat) ultimately determines whether or not the "country" succeeded in the revolt. Not whether or not they had "the right" to do so...

edited 4th Nov '12 5:25:00 PM by Swish

It wasn't just a power game, it was an economic game as well.

The South was getting more dependent on slave labor, while the north was getting more dependent on industrialization.

Meanwhile both sides were afraid that the other sides economic system would expand into there land.

Additionally many Northerners saw The Dred Scott Case (due to it ruling that all people of African descent for that matter, were found not to be citizens of the United States. This decision was contrary to the practice of numerous states at the time, particularly Free states, where freed slaves did in fact enjoy the rights of citizens, such as the right to vote and hold public office.) and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (due to it allowing slave owners to go into free states when trying to recapture escaped slaves. These fears materialized as the idea of slave power.

Plus Southerners were afraid that the abolition of slavery would cause a large amount of free bitter black people. These fears were further fanned by slave owners (which the majority of the Southern population was not) whose livelihood depended on slavery. Many of these slave owners fled for Cuba after the war.

Overall the main cause for the Civil War was economic.

The human race has not been kind to the human race.

edited 4th Nov '12 5:33:58 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Legally, they didn't have the right to secede. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union stated that the union shall be perpetual and the Constitution stated that it was to "form a more perfect Union", and as a result of these two things, once you join the US, you don't get to leave.

Morally? Nope. They wanted to leave the Union because they thought the new president MIGHT take away their slaves, so they decided to leave so they could continue to oppress other humans, a choice that ironically, led to the loss of their slaves.

As for stating that we "reannexed" the south? Legally, we did not because legally, they never left because as far as the law is concerned, secession is not legal, and noone else was going to dispute our claim because noone recognized the CSA as a nation.

In the case of the South, they did have the ability to vote in Federal elections; they could fight for the things important to them through the existing democratic process. Colonial America did not have a say in Britain's Parliament, so their choices were revolt, roll over, or ask really nicely.

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

Well, it clearly DID exist. It held power over a substantial area of land for a period of time, was supported by the residents of that area, enforced its own laws, had its own army and navy ...

Its situation was in some ways similar to the situation of Taiwan today, except that unlike the Taiwanese government, the Confederacy never claimed to be the rightful government of all of the United States. Had the CSA lasted longer, it would likely have been at least semi-recognized by other nations (one could argue that it actually was, at least by the UK and others) even if full recognition as a nation was denied it due to pressure from the United States.

A brighter future for a darker age.

Well, by a portion of residents (and in a few cases, the states' actual population voted AGAINST secession, but their legislature said "fuck that, we're seceding anyway"). The CSA was practically in a second, smaller civil war of its own during the its entire existence and every singe state that "seceded" delivered at least one division to the Union army. It didn't hold power so much as "power" (which is to say, power in name only) due to lack of support and the fact that its government was very weak (by design).

They were putting down a rebellion, not annexing a sovereign nation. That was the point I was making and why I'm bothered when people use the term "annex" when they describe the American Civil War.

edited 4th Nov '12 6:57:47 PM by CPFMfan

...

I only used the term because someone else referred to them as a "foreign invasion". If you refer to them as such, you are already accepting they are a sovereign nation in the first place and, as such, it was annexation.

Yeah, I agree with you. From USA point of view, the CSA is a rebellion, not its own state.

This doesn't change the CSA was a de facto entity, though.