Is It Morale To Oppose Secession From the Union?

[Slartibartfast]

*Point of semantics. A civil war is defined as two factions vying for control of a single government. As such, the 'American Civil War' was no such beast.

Ooh.. great piece of trivia. I'm so going to use that if I feel like pissing somebody off

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It's also defined as conflict between factions of the same country. I dont know if that adds anything to it. What is considered a faction?

[Petrosjko]

It's also defined as conflict between factions of the same country. I dont know if that adds anything to it. What is considered a faction?

In this context an organized group of some form or fashion, vying for power.

[Civil War Man]

Seems this is a topic I should contribute my two cents to.

The South's secession was anything but unanimous (of course, about a third of the colonial populated disapproved of the Revolution), especially in the border states that either left or stayed (Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland). West Virginia, as mentioned earlier, is proof of this.

Shady dealings were done on both sides. Maryland's choice to remain in the Union was due in large part to pro-Secession representatives being arrested the day of the vote, though such an action prevented DC from becoming an island surrounded by hostile land. On the other side, were it not for the presence of Confederate troops, there might also be the state of East Tennessee.

Political struggles always walk a very fine line in terms of morality. Though the fight against the Nazis is widely considered to be a moral fight, the Allies had to do many immoral things in order to accomplish their goals. Common example is, of course, Dresden. Another would be the deaths of British civilians killed in bombing raids because they were not evacuated in order to keep the Germans from realizing that their codes had been broken.

The secessionist movement was largely motivated by greed. People harped about state's rights, but the right that the loudest among them was mostly concerned about was slave-owning rights. The Texas Republic ala Alamo may never have existed, since they petitioned the US for annexation, but it was shot down by the Southern representatives until it could be guaranteed that Texas would enter the Union as a slave state.

Then, of course, there's the Dred Scott case (about 1854, if I recall correctly). The South certainly would have objected to a Northern state not returning escapees because the northern state decided that one of their sovereign rights was not having to return them.

Lincoln himself, though mostly concerned with preserving the Union, opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories. Many slave-holding states saw that attitude as a threat of the slippery slope variety. The Federal government could hardly be called oppressive, though (in fact, many sectors of the government were integrated under Lincoln, and it stayed that way until Woodrow Wilson reversed it. The Army was segregated, though just as much by state than by any ethnicity). Beyond militias, which were controlled by the state, the US had very little in the way of a standing army. Both North and South had to mobilize for several months before they were in any condition to fight a major battle (Fort Sumter, the kickoff of the Civil War, was in early April. Bull Run/Manassas, largely considered the first major battle, didn't happen until mid July).

Now, of course, we do have the benefit of hindsight. Had the Union not been forcibly kept together, it likely would have resulted in a cascade failure, leaving North America largely covered by various Banana Republics and tinpot dictatorships. Spain might have retained some semblence of an American Empire for a while longer at least, since there would have been no cohesive nation to rattle sabres, then wage a war and take the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. Some historians have even speculated that if the split between the North and South held, there would have been an American front during World War I (South obviously supporting the British and French and the North fighting for the Germans because their neighbors sided with the other side).

My conclusion: Whether secession was moral or not, the South's motivation for such a decision was shady at best. One could easily argue that Lincoln would be justified in using the means at his disposal to prevent this. Unfortunately for the South, Lincoln was President, so the means at his disposal was the power to raise an army to put down the rebellion.

[Kitsune]

First, a little wander off topic. The previous writer wrote that Dresden was an immoral attack. I would disagree with that. It was a military target and had legitimate reasons for being bombed. As well, many of the death tolls appear to have been inflated.

Now, back to the main subject. In 1850, there was the Fugative Slave Act which forced Northern States to return slaves back to the Southern States. The Southern States did not seem to think that the Northern States had a right to not follow the Law. Suddenly, when it was southerners rights, it was a different case. Hmm....

Also, I have an intersting quote from Alexander Stevens, the Confederacy's Vice president. The Confederacy's "cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to a superior race -is a natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first in the history of the world based on great physical, philosophical, and moral truths"

[Kitsune]

Sorry, Stephens not Stevens

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

THere were many cases where the north did abide by the fugitive slave act, though. ONe cause was in bostin in the 1860's, i think. It caused so much and was so damaging that it was highly unrealistic to enforce in many abolitionist kingdoms.

[Kitsune]

THere were many cases where the north did abide by the fugitive slave act, though. ONe cause was in bostin in the 1860's, i think. It caused so much and was so damaging that it was highly unrealistic to enforce in many abolitionist kingdoms.

True, but it shows a certain contridiction as far as how the South felt the laws apply.

[Civil War Man]

First, a little wander off topic. The previous writer wrote that Dresden was an immoral attack. I would disagree with that. It was a military target and had legitimate reasons for being bombed. As well, many of the death tolls appear to have been inflated.

This starts to get into a debate between morality and justification. Proper justification can tone down the harshness of a normally immoral act (i.e. destroying a city), and improper justification can make the motives of a typically moral act questionable (for a random, but not too good, example: someone saves a child from a burning building not for the sake of the kid, but simply because they have some kind of hero complex).

Anyway, pulling that slight tangent back to the point, you covered what I was trying to say rather well. Even if we work under the assumption that the states had the right to secede, their motives become questionable due to poor justification of the act (they wanted to keep their slaves) and Lincoln had a legitimate reason to put them down by force (preserving a cohesive nation and as an added benefit freeing the slaves).

Of course, if the states didn't have the right to secede, then Lincoln would be on the ethical high ground because he would basically have performed a police action, using the power at his disposal to enforce the law.

It would have been nice if force was not necessary, but to be blunt, the Confederates were itching for a fight. Many southern senators had been preparing for the Civil War for years prior to Lincoln's election, moving stores of munitions to their home states (at the onset of the war, the South was actually better armed than the North, though this discrepency was quickly rectified).

[Durandal]

States are not sovereign nations. They fall under the jurisdictions of the federal government. The land they live on belongs to the federal government. So if they wish to be independent, they can emigrate to some island. The land is not theirs to claim.

Well, technically, couldn't you say the same thing about the 13 Colonies, or the african nations who broke away from European imperialism?

Actually, yes. When talking about the American Revolution, people like to yammer about "taxation without representation." But in reality, the British defended the 13 colonies and expended quite a bit to keep them around. What were the British supposed to do? Give the colonies protection for free?

And besides, a rebellion is only illegal if it fails.

[Uraniun235]

The best part of the American Revolution was the fact that this high level of protection (and therefore taxation) came about because colonists were violating the treaty boundary with the natives and the natives were retaliating with deadly force.

[Broomstick]

But the states are not sovereign nations. The states conduct certain operations without interference from the federal government, but ultimately, they are under that federal government.

No... but many of them used to be sovereign nations. The original 13 colonies, Texas, and Hawaii were all independent, sovereign nations at one point. Hawaii doesn't enter into the picture in the 1860's, but Texas was an independent nation when it chose to join the USA, and perhaps many there might argue that it still had the right to depart the Union and revert back sovereign nationhood.

The examples given for secession today -- well, that would result in another civil war, plain and simple. You can argue what was intended in the 1780's all you want, by 1865 it was clear the Union can not and will not be dissolved. If you join you join forever. (sort of like covenant marriage, but without the "out" of dying). The winners write the history books AND the rules.

You know, the EU should be cautious about that, too - at a certain point, you can wind up surrending so much sovereignty that you can no longer get out of the arrangement. Does Europe want to be a confederacy or a union? You folks better get that clear pretty quick, for your own good.

[Broomstick]

Point of semantics. A civil war is defined as two factions vying for control of a single government. As such, the 'American Civil War' was no such beast.

True - but the name has stuck, despite such alternatives as "the war between the states" (very accurate) or, as my in-laws like to style it, "the war of northern agression".

When I was in France, sitting in on a high school history class, the teacher started on about the "American secession crisis". I'm going huh? Secession crisis? What secessi - oh, she's talking about the Civil War. We actually had a brief discussion about the difference in terminology, which would have been even more interesting if my French had been better. "Crisis" just doesn't seem to do the event justice, given the destruction and blood involved, at least to the American mind.

[Xenophobe3691]

I know all land isn't federally owned, but that doesn't mean that residents of a given state have the right to just take their land and leave any time they want. Were this true, we'd have to allow anyone with a deed to property the same right to secede and form his own nation on his land.

I'm extremely confused. Are you referring to a state leaving, or just some extremely rich dude buying up land and leaving when he wishes?

Because if it's the second, you should really look up what the hell Walt Disney World exactly is as a legal entity...

[Guardsman Bass]

I know all land isn't federally owned, but that doesn't mean that residents of a given state have the right to just take their land and leave any time they want. Were this true, we'd have to allow anyone with a deed to property the same right to secede and form his own nation on his land.

I'm extremely confused. Are you referring to a state leaving, or just some extremely rich dude buying up land and leaving when he wishes?

Because if it's the second, you should really look up what the hell Walt Disney World exactly is as a legal entity...

It sounds like he's saying that private landowners don't have the right to declare themselves and their property of sovereign entity whenever they feel like it.

[Xenophobe3691]

It sounds like he's saying that private landowners don't have the right to declare themselves and their property of sovereign entity whenever they feel like it.

In that case, yes, he's right. But what was discussed was the state government packing up and leaving, and technically it's their land.

[Durandal]

But the states are not sovereign nations. The states conduct certain operations without interference from the federal government, but ultimately, they are under that federal government.

No... but many of them used to be sovereign nations. The original 13 colonies, Texas, and Hawaii were all independent, sovereign nations at one point. Hawaii doesn't enter into the picture in the 1860's, but Texas was an independent nation when it chose to join the USA, and perhaps many there might argue that it still had the right to depart the Union and revert back sovereign nationhood.

When becoming a state, those nations explicitly gave up their sovereignty. So no, they don't still have the right t depart whenever they want. (Not that I'd mind losing Texas.)

[Durandal]

It sounds like he's saying that private landowners don't have the right to declare themselves and their property of sovereign entity whenever they feel like it.

In that case, yes, he's right. But what was discussed was the state government packing up and leaving, and technically it's their land.

And technically, my parents have 3/4 of an acre that is their land. Yet they cannot secede and declare themselves their own nation. And let's not forget the federal highway system. That's government property that runs through every state.

[Xenophobe3691]

And technically, my parents have 3/4 of an acre that is their land. Yet they cannot secede and declare themselves their own nation. And let's not forget the federal highway system. That's government property that runs through every state.

But your parents aren't a sovereign entity with given governmental rights within the Constitution, nor did they ratify it. When each state seceded, they didn't just quit. They reversed their previous ratification of the Constitution, in essence, cancelling treaty obligations.

[Guardsman Bass]

The states have their own, separate constitutions, but are those only legitimized by the National Constitutions, or could they stand on their own? I believe it is the latter (since several of the original 13 ratified their state constitutions while the Articles of Confederation were still in use), but I think that if any state were today to secede, most of its inhabitants would consider that it has lost constitutional legitimacy.

Also, if the state constitutions do stand on their own, then, as Xenophobe said, they are at least partially sovereign entities that resigned rights upon joining the national government, particularly since the state governments of the original 13 colonies preceded the Constitution, and any prospective state is required to set up a State Government before being allowed into the Union.

[Durandal]

And technically, my parents have 3/4 of an acre that is their land. Yet they cannot secede and declare themselves their own nation. And let's not forget the federal highway system. That's government property that runs through every state.

But your parents aren't a sovereign entity with given governmental rights within the Constitution, nor did they ratify it.

States aren't sovereign entities either.

When each state seceded, they didn't just quit. They reversed their previous ratification of the Constitution, in essence, cancelling treaty obligations.

The Constitution is not a treaty among the states. It is the supreme legal document of the United States. When the states ratified the Constitution, they affirmed that that was the document they wanted governing the United States. They were not agreeing to something that they could back out of later on.

[HemlockGrey]

They were not agreeing to something that they could back out of later on.

Legally, that's true, but I'm thinking, well, this almost a hundred years later, and the millions of people who inhabit those areas don't agree with the document, and want to leave. What's that UN principle? Self-determination?

[Xenophobe3691]

States aren't sovereign entities either.

They were before signing the Constitution, and at the time of attempted secession, most in those states remembered that quite clearly.

The Constitution is not a treaty among the states. It is the supreme legal document of the United States. When the states ratified the Constitution, they affirmed that that was the document they wanted governing the United States. They were not agreeing to something that they could back out of later on.

At the time of signing, the Constitution wasn't considered a binding document. Hence the New England movement for Secession in the War of 1812 and during the Mexican War, and the numerous threats by that damned troublemaker of a state, South Carolina.

[Darth P44]

West Virginia, as mentioned earlier, is proof of this.

West Virginia was "artifficially created" in 1863, its territory was until that point part of the State of Virginia...we can call a "secession within the secession"????????

[Petrosjko]

West Virginia, as mentioned earlier, is proof of this.

West Virginia was "artifficially created" in 1863, its territory was until that point part of the State of Virginia...we can call a "secession within the secession"????????

And a specifically constitutionally illegal one, to boot.