TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

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

Go To

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#51: Nov 5th 2012 at 12:04:32 AM

[up]Backsies would have happened, had the South got a backer with fire power and been able to make it stick. tongue I believe I mentioned just how often treaties got torn up in that era if you could get away with it?

Heck: the same thing would happen now, if there weren't international laws and international groupings of powers. <shrugs> For all people complain about the UN, it's not without some purpose. smile

edited 5th Nov '12 12:04:57 AM by Euodiachloris

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#52: Nov 5th 2012 at 12:13:18 AM

Heck: the same thing would happen now, if there weren't international laws and international groupings of powers. <shrugs> For all people complain about the UN, it's not without some purpose

>Looks at Syria.

Whatever you say I suppose.

edited 5th Nov '12 12:21:01 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#53: Nov 5th 2012 at 12:14:22 AM

Sure, there's the inherent limitation of "so long as we can enforce it" to all terms (including even the perpetual union deal), but the fact is, the Union COULD enforce it, meaning that since Might Makes Right, the South could not legally secede, and thus, did not have the legal right to do so.

edited 5th Nov '12 12:14:53 AM by Balmung

Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#54: Nov 5th 2012 at 12:28:49 AM

[up][up]Didn't say it gets it exactly right all the time. tongue But, it's better than a free-for-all without any checks beyond "does my neighbour want to help me in exchange for that strip of land we're always arguing about?". tongue

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#55: Nov 5th 2012 at 2:42:34 AM

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).

The notion that the Union itself is perpetual absolutely does not imply that the particular states that comprise it are always the same. If it meant that, then no one else could join the Union afterward either. I can certainly imagine the courts interpreting it like that after-the-fact, but the courts ignoring the letter of it to justify enforcing modern values is pretty much the standard (not that that's a bad thing).

Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#56: Nov 5th 2012 at 3:48:44 AM

I suppose they were modern values at the time, but the time was something like the 1870s, so it's not like it's a recent ruling or anything. It was used to rule that a contract made in the CSA was still valid and had to be fulfilled, and it did so on the grounds that the the states never seceded (instead, they were "states in rebellion") because you can't leave the Union.

Also, I don't read "perpetual union" as not allowing new states, merely as not allowing any of them to leave.

If you couldn't tell, I don't think that states have the right (legal or moral) to secede.

edited 5th Nov '12 3:49:35 AM by Balmung

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#57: Nov 5th 2012 at 4:04:02 AM

"Modern" changes with the era, yes. It's still a hundred years after the Union was formed though. Post-war, in the context of something economically and morally important like that, is exactly when they'd want to twist the letter. "Bad facts make bad law." That's the first thing they tell you in law school. No judge wants to endorse behavior they find morally unacceptable, like trying to worm your way out of an otherwise valid contract.

In the context of the original creation, "perpetual" probably just meant it wouldn't expire on its own, and didn't need to be renewed.

edited 5th Nov '12 4:10:44 AM by Clarste

Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#58: Nov 5th 2012 at 4:20:39 AM

Likely, but precedents can do funny things, such as changing the meanings of laws via interpretation, and, to my knowledge, that precedent has not been overturned, so that interpretation of the words stands.

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#59: Nov 5th 2012 at 4:29:22 AM

Well, yes, that's the only way judges can change laws. Thus, the only way that "bad facts make bad law". But the issue here is that this case was decided after the Civil War, and therefore has no bearing on whether or not it was legal for them to secede in the first place. *

A post-war decision that the losers were in the wrong is kind of... um... biased.

It's unclear how they would have felt about it if they hadn't just fought a bloody war motivated by a major humanitarian and economic issue.

Edit: Also, that ruling doesn't seem to address the issue of legality in the first place. It just says that it's impossible to secede, legally or otherwise. It makes the whole idea a contradiction.

edited 5th Nov '12 4:35:40 AM by Clarste

Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#60: Nov 5th 2012 at 4:55:03 AM

At the time? The "states in rebellion" theory was actually pretty popular, in particular with Abraham Lincoln, IIRC. It was based on this theory (and a fear of a long, drawn-out guerrilla (I HATE trying to remember how to spell that) war with southern remnants) that he wanted a rather generous and lenient reintroduction for the South. On the other hand, Congress more favoured the theory that they had seceded (and as such, that secession was possible) and that they were to be brought back in and punished harshly for it, and they eventually got their way by and large, leading to a Reconstruction that was pretty hard on the South. Of course, this is all if I recall my American History classes properly.

If it's impossible, it's clearly illegal as well. tongue

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#61: Nov 5th 2012 at 4:59:21 AM

Sorry for the off-topic, but can we please, please, give special attention to not confusing "secede" and "succeed"? It makes this thread very hard to read.

PS: If those who understand my plight could also make it retroactive via use of their Edit buttons, it would be really great.

edited 5th Nov '12 5:00:47 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#62: Nov 5th 2012 at 5:07:53 AM

At the time? The "states in rebellion" theory was actually pretty popular, in particular with Abraham Lincoln, IIRC. It was based on this theory (and a fear of a long, drawn-out guerrilla (I HATE trying to remember how to spell that) war with southern remnants) that he wanted a rather generous and lenient reintroduction for the South. On the other hand, Congress more favoured the theory that they had seceded (and as such, that secession was possible) and that they were to be brought back in and punished harshly for it, and they eventually got their way by and large, leading to a Reconstruction that was pretty hard on the South. Of course, this is all if I recall my American History classes properly.

Um... you're still talking post-war. The Union wasn't formed post-war. It was formed pre-war, you might say. The question is whether or not the state was given the right to secede when it joined the Union. So it only matters what the people in the 1700s signing the documents believed. Abe is cool and all, but completely irrelevant here.

And, well, you've kind of just demonstrated that they were basing their decisions on pragmatic issues. "I don't like this result therefore it's illegal" is... actually something Congress has the power to do, but from the position of the CSA deciding whether or not their actions would be illegal before making them is kind of meaningless. The whole point of illegality is the concept of notice, ie: that potential lawbreakers know or have reason to know that what they're doing is illegal. Cause it might discourage them. Changing the answer after-the-fact just so you can punish them is itself illegal (unconstitutional).

If it's impossible, it's clearly illegal as well. tongue

I would argue the opposite. If it's impossible, it's clearly not illegal because no one would ever bother illegalizing an impossibility. Legislative intent and all that.

edited 5th Nov '12 5:20:59 AM by Clarste

Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#63: Nov 5th 2012 at 5:29:15 AM

I thought you were referring to the Civil War not the Revolutionary War, so I gave opinions from the time of the war. I don't really know about the founders' intent (and to some extent, I don't care, because what seemed like a good idea back then didn't always continue to be a good idea (eg. letting Congress raise its own salary and benefit from it in the same term, gold standard currency)), but they did do their darnedest to keep the union together and even scrapped the Articles when the country looked like it was going to fall apart to create a government that COULD hold the states together.

It's hard to say whether they were changing the law after the fact. It's more that they were interpreting the statements of secession differently. Congress took it at face value and decided on retribution. Lincoln saw it and decided that it wasn't possible in the first place because the Union couldn't be broken up and decided to go for reconciliation after the fighting ended (not that John Wilkes Booth gave him the chance).

And in this case, it's impossible because of the nature by which it's illegal. Legally speaking by that precedent, secession isn't even a thing.

edited 5th Nov '12 5:32:41 AM by Balmung

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#64: Nov 5th 2012 at 5:35:46 AM

I was also talking about the Civil War.

Anyway, precedents don't work retroactively. The topic asks "Did the Southern U.S. have the right to secede?", which is completely different from "Does the Southern U.S. have the right to secede?" Based on this precedent, they apparently don't (in fact, the very idea makes no sense), but that wasn't decided until after they tried and failed. Precedent is the whole basis of the US legal system, yes, but if you're looking at historical events you have to look at the precedent established before they happened. Because, you know, old precedent can and is overruled by new precedent. The courts wouldn't have had to make a ruling on the subject at all if that had already been accepted as law.

In terms of what precedent existed beforehand... well it wasn't exactly going in the South's favor, but that's exactly why the seceded when they did.

edited 5th Nov '12 5:52:05 AM by Clarste

Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#65: Nov 5th 2012 at 5:46:09 AM

I'm only basing MY opinion of whether they had the right to on said precedent and I already have the benefit of hindsight.

Regardless, the general opinion in the North was that the South did not have the right to secede (I mean, duh, that's why we had a war about it) (whether it was as "They literally CANNOT secede" (this was actually a pretty common view at the time and was also held by most of Congress when the war started) or "the seceded and we're not gonna allow that, so we're going to kick their asses and MAKE them rejoin" (this was common among groups like the Radical Republicans which came into power over the course of the war)).

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#66: Nov 5th 2012 at 5:57:45 AM

We're talking about rights here, not opinions. Of course the North didn't like the South very much. I mean, duh. That has nothing to do with anything though. Imagine a hypothetical situation in which some harmless little state like Rhode Island or something decided it wanted to secede for some harmless reason (not to join another country, not for any fundamental ideological differences). They just wanted to go it alone for whatever reason. The Civil War hasn't happened, nor is it on the horizon. The Union isn't dependent on them economically, there's no animosity, but just out of formality they take it to court before seceding. What decision gets made?

It's... kind of hard to imagine, really, but I doubt it would at all resemble any kind of opinion the North had of the South during the goddamn Civil War.

edited 5th Nov '12 5:58:49 AM by Clarste

Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#67: Nov 5th 2012 at 6:03:43 AM

South: We don't want your rules so we're cutting off and being our own person!

North: We refuse to acknowledge your decision and you better stop asking France for help.

South: But we have a President and a Congressional Body!

North: Nope, still not acknowledging you as independent. Cut it out or we'll have to make you cut it out.

South: *plays Dixie and sneers*

North: Okay, we warned you-*points cannons*

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#68: Nov 5th 2012 at 6:07:40 AM

[up][up]Union probably says "No, you can't do that" and occupies RI with the army and all of its (Rhode Island's) neighbours support this because they don't want to pay no stinkin' tariff. Also, it wasn't a "North doesn't like the South" thing, it was a "You can't do that" (though whether that's as in "I won't let you" or "you literally can't" might vary from person to person) thing.

[up]Sounds roughly right except for the fact that the South fired the first shot.

edited 5th Nov '12 6:10:00 AM by Balmung

Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#69: Nov 5th 2012 at 6:11:21 AM

Fort Sumter? Sumpter?

I'm trying not to cheat and google it. I haven't studied the Civil War since what, 4th grade?

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#70: Nov 5th 2012 at 6:12:32 AM

It was Fort Sumter and the South opened fire on it after demanding that it surrender.

Clarste One Winged Egret Since: Jun, 2009 Relationship Status: Non-Canon
One Winged Egret
#71: Nov 5th 2012 at 6:17:57 AM

[up][up]Union probably says "No, you can't do that" and occupies RI with the army and all of its (Rhode Island's) neighbours support this because they don't want to pay no stinkin' tariff. Also, it wasn't a "North doesn't like the South" thing, it was a "You can't do that" (though whether that's as in "I won't let you" or "you literally can't" might vary from person to person) thing.

So...you're flip-flopping between "here are all the economic and political reasons" and "they clearly neither had nor needed any reason other than constitutional ones." I don't think your arguments make much sense.

Also, we can adjust the hypothetical to assume that Congress has previous passed interstate taxes equivalent to tariffs, so there is no economic impact whatsoever. It's my hypothetical, so I can do whatever I want with it.

Edit: Also, I said they took it to court before seceding. Imagine a mousy lawyer asking for permission. No armies, no war, just lawyers and judges. Rights. Laws. Because that's what we're talking about here.

edited 5th Nov '12 6:23:12 AM by Clarste

Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#72: Nov 5th 2012 at 6:20:29 AM

Whoot! I remembered something!

When I was at President Davis' Home, there were people complaining it is technically a presidential library. I found it rather tasteful how it was preserved and respected as this guy didn't want the job, but like Lee, felt he had to. It just showed how there were people who didn't want succession, but were forced to support it due to the intense family culture of the south.

I'm glad my Dad also made sure to take me to a lot of the Battle sites when we traveled to Washington DC. Really put things in context with each other.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#73: Nov 5th 2012 at 6:47:16 AM

[up][up]No, I was saying that the neighbouring states would probably just as soon support the Union occupation just because they're not going to want to pay tariffs on goods from RI when they never had to do so before. However, if such taxes were already in place, they'd probably still send in the army to keep it in the Union. Regardless of the Constitution (which doesn't even have a provision for a means to leave the Union), the politics would make it suicide to let a state just secede like that (especially when people like Andrew Jackson had already committed horrible atrocities (the Trail of Tears) to hold the Union together). The President who let them pull that shit off would be guaranteed to lose the next election for being weak. Other nations would likely take it as an invitation to start shit with us and try to push us around because we can't even keep a handful of states together. Other states would also take it as open permission to secede if they felt that it was even remotely in their interest or they didn't like who was in charge. The Union would probably collapse withing a decade, maybe two. On top of this, Rhode Island seceding would be highly irregular unless this was very early on in the life of the USA (when RI was the rebellious little prick of the US), and at that point, it'd be a death sentence for the US because then other states would probably figure that RI knows something they don't and try to secede too and then we have mass panic and the dissolution of the Union. The Northern states by the mid-1800s pretty much all had a very strong sense of the importance and permanence of the Union. If they took it to court, the SCOTUS would probably find against them using much the same reasoning as the actual precedent, even if the real reasoning would likely be every bit as much political as Constitutional (they'd probably realize the potential consequences of making the US seem like something you can just casually leave). If they ruled that it WAS Constitutional, the President would probably send in the army anyway on Jacksonian reasoning (the Supreme Court has made its ruling, now let's see them enforce it) because he's not gonna risk looking weak like that, then the South would likely declare this an attack on State's Rights and secede and then we basically have the ACW anyway.

The answer is almost certainly "not happening" at any point. More or less all of the presidents did whatever they felt they had to to keep the Union together, even if that meant blatantly ignoring the Supreme Court. On top of that, it's in the Union's own self interest to hold itself together.

edited 5th Nov '12 6:50:14 AM by Balmung

DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#74: Nov 5th 2012 at 7:19:53 AM

"Rights" don't really matter. They're abstractions, and confuse what the main issue is. Little else matters other than the end result, which, in this case, is millions of slaves being freed.

Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#75: Nov 5th 2012 at 7:35:15 AM

Actually the goal was to keep the Union together. Emancipating the slaves wasn't done when it was out of benelovence, it was stragetic in further weaking the south and accelarating the end of the war.

Lincoln himself wanted all the former slaves to go back to Africa.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Total posts: 360
Top