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

From the British perspective, the American War of Independence was a rebellion. The only difference is... that one succeeded.

The CSA had a point. So did the US. Fortunately for the US, "might is right" was still the defining characteristic of international law at the time. <shrugs> In modern terms, you'd've had the UN on your backs, folks.

edited 4th Nov '12 7:22:26 PM by Euodiachloris

In modern terms, Slavery has been universally banned (by the UN), so the whole conflict would have been avoided.

Unless the South succeeds over the US attempting to enforce that band, and if that happened I don't think the UN would be that sympathetic of The Confederacy's plight.

edited 4th Nov '12 7:41:06 PM by DeviantBraeburn

, I don't think you (generic "you") can really make a case either way for what the UN would do if they were around back then, or if an ACW analogue happened nowadays. Too many variables to be more than material.

As for the OP's question, while I don't quite buy into the "CSA totally evil, USA totally good" popular view (I live in SC, but was born and raised in northern Illinois, I know angels and demons aren't geographically restricted ), ultimately it comes down to, as noted, "might makes right". The CSA lost, therefore in all practical terms it ultimately didn't have the right.

(And I don't think the UN really changes "might makes right", but that's off-topic for this thread.)

edited 4th Nov '12 7:38:47 PM by Nohbody

I was meaning in the purely "one part tries to succeed away (and, goes some way towards independence)... another part tries to fight them back into the fold" part. I wasn't touching the whole slavery thing, as that has no modern context as both an economic and social set-up in the context of valid state's law.

And, you probably knew that, you demon.

edited 4th Nov '12 7:39:04 PM by Euodiachloris

From the British perspective, the American War of Independence was a rebellion. The only difference is... that one succeeded.

Naturally.

^^ As sympathetic as I am in regards to the "States Rights" issue, ultimately slavery was the reason for the CSA's brief existence. The overwhelming majority of southern arguments advanced in favor of secession were directly connected to the continuation of slavery and the right to own another person as property.

Yes. Noted. However: they did, for a time, go somewhere onto the road of autonomy: however odious the reasons are currently now found to be.

At the time, it wasn't so clear-cut. The economic model would probably not have been sustained... but... from their perspective, that wasn't clear. <shrugs>

States have been founded on worse things, you know. Heck: once upon a time, you could create a state by moving a population into another and killing everything in sight and saying "mine". The core of many modern nation states come down to something similar to that. Take the UK and Russia, for example. <shrugs>

edited 4th Nov '12 7:48:10 PM by Euodiachloris

@Balmung: Your post basically sums up my feelings on the subject.

The reason a group has for there succession/revolt/rebellion/whatever is of great importance to how the international community acts.

Regardless, what negates The Confederacy's moral right to succession (@Balmung already pointed out that they didn't have the legal right) for me was there goal. That goal being to preserve and continue the practice of slavery (the sad part was that Lincoln repeatedly promised that he wasn't going to abolish slavery, because he was afraid that the states might revolt. Too bad no one in the South listened/cared).

Let me compare the Confederate's succession to a more recent event. There are two groups in Mali right now fighting for succession from there government. The first group are the Tuareg Nationalists who want to succeed because according to them the Mali government has marginalized and consequently impoverished them, and denied them political representation. The second group are Islamic Radicals who want to succeed so they can impose sharia law on there new nation.

The Confederacy is like the Radical Islamic movement.

The American Revolutionaries are like the Tuareg Nationalists.

edited 4th Nov '12 8:35:15 PM by DeviantBraeburn

All revolutions are illegal when they're in the third person, and heroic when in the first.

Can't you be both?

edited 4th Nov '12 9:23:23 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Yes and no.

Oh... about legal right: officially... the States didn't have the legal right to rebel from the UK, at the time they did, you know: such a thing as self-determination on your own terms didn't exist in law for colonies of any state: let alone a rulebook for parts of a colony deciding to succeed from another ex-colony-self. The War of Independence took it at just the right time when the UK had other problems on top of a rebellious set of colonies (like horrible troubles at home and with France). The CSA attempted the same thing... it didn't work, as other factors went against them. And, well... the US wasn't destabilised and disorganised at home, for starters.

I was making a joke about the UN. At the time, "might is right" was the not just de facto, but the de jure way of doing things. Most rules and regs were not international in flavour, unless all parties agreed via signed treaty, and even then... heh... those could be torn up at the drop of a hat as long as you had means to prevent fallout via arms and/or a decent-sized backer behind you. The CSA certainly didn't agree to what happened, but nobody else was interested in their problem enough to meddle or to further destabilise the region for their own ends.

Had there been an international body analogous to the UN a that time, it would have intervened... but how would be another kettle of fish. It certainly wouldn't have been on humanitarian grounds (no human rights, remember?). And, depending on how the larger colonial powers would have wanted things... might have landed on the States' side, not Confederate. Or the other way around: depending on what served their combined interests, probably on how it'd impact back home.

I were joking. Dear Lord, I didn't think you'd take it for any more than that!

edited 4th Nov '12 9:50:09 PM by Euodiachloris

Well the thing is that the CSA was not considered that valuable. They thought they would have back-up from Britain but they had started getting their agricultural goods from elsewhere and did not find them worth supporting through a war.

Nobody really allied with the US, either. Probably if their was an international entity like the UN that had no interest in human rights, it's likely they wouldn't have done anything at all.

France almost allied with the CSA, because they thought it help them with there invasion of Mexico. But ultimately the deal fell through.

edited 4th Nov '12 9:59:40 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Yup: things fell through with other players, because ultimately... the CSA couldn't really interest them enough in anything that would further their own plans with little cost. Given a set-up like the UN, you'd know for certain Britain and France would have been at each other's throats so much, they'd forget what caused the argument in the first place and go to war somewhere else or just invest in extra-icy diplomacy for a few decades.

And this basically summarizes Prussia's contribution to the Civil War.

Uh... those funny Prussians. Always good for the jokes. You just need to look at their hats◊ to know what clowns they could be... Uh... says she from the country that gave the world "how to look like a target in uniform◊" lessons.

edited 4th Nov '12 10:23:21 PM by Euodiachloris

Yes — the Confederates thought Britain would be dependent on their cotton supply, but in actual fact the British had already been working on becoming less reliant on American cotton, with stockpiles and production in Egypt among other places. Same for most other European nations, I think.

Plus, most prospective allies considered the Union the likely victor, on account of greater industrial resources, and weren't willing to risk relations with them.

To be fair, Motke was right. You don't put down a "rebellion" by burning/destroying everything in the area of the rebellion... It makes your army no better than an armed mob.

Now, if you're fighting a war with another nation there might be something of worth to learn from those actions(and there apparently is something of worth to learn from it, or they wouldn't have classes on Sherman's March at West Point)... But every other nation in the world(once they ultimately decided not to get involved) accepted the idea that the CSA was just another rebellion...

edited 4th Nov '12 10:27:16 PM by Swish

I think there was also the idea floating around that the two sides would beat each other up sufficiently enough to make invading/taking over a profitable idea later on. It was likely really vague, and the prevailing idea was "fuck it, they're on the other side of the ocean and it's not like it's hurting us in any way." Other countries didn't do a lot of interfering in civil wars that weren't going on next door to them in those days.

It is an organized armed rebellion, so from military/tactical point of view it is the same with waging war. To ended Rebellion, ending armed and organized part is the first part, Reconciliation/Reconstruction/etc is second phase after your army already "in control".

Sherman March contributed to Total War, Scorched Earth tactic and Psychological War. tactically it also show possibility of deep operation in enemy territory.

The US wasn't really a major superpower back then anyway, so I don't think anyone really cared that much. It doesn't matter who owns the farmland as long as they sell you stuff.

As for the legal right... I'm pretty sure they did. The Union was originally conceived of as more of an alliance of sovereign states than any kind of central government. More like the European Union. If the legal government of any particular state decided to leave the US, they should have had the legal right to do so. Morally you might claim the state governments were invalid because of slavery and all that, but legally they would have the right.

If yon can find anything to support that feel free to present it.

All we have now is Balmug's proof against succession.

So I don't see any 'opt-out' option

edited 4th Nov '12 11:29:36 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Not really. The Articles of Confederation were more comparable to the EU, but proved unmanageable since it was basically a volunteer status. Once they decided on being the "United States" and had decided there would be a federal government they made themselves legally bound to be part of a larger country.

Course, the legality of it is probably moot insofar as I doubt even clear language saying "no you can't do this shit" would have stopped them.

Save for one thing: the Articles (or to give their full name, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) specifically stated that "the Union shall be perpetual". There wasn't just no "opt-out clause", there was specifically a "no opt-out clause". The courts then upheld that since the Constitution states that (part of) its purpose is "to form a more perfect Union", that this means, by extension, that the Union under the Constitution is perpetual, meaning no backsies, ever. Incidentally, this also means that contracts made in the states in rebellion were still valid and "I made it during the War in the South" wasn't legal grounds for calling backsies on a contract (which was, IIRC, the original case).