Did the South have a right to secede?

[Desori]

Did it have the right? No

Should it have had the right? Yes. All citizens, states, etc. etc. should have the freedom to choose where they reside. So long as the individual owns the land, and is prepared to completely support themselves, entering into a social contract that is citizenship should be a choice, not an obligation.

[William Delaney III]

I think the OP is asking the wrong set of questions. Legality is an uncertain subject, and it always has been. Just about anything can be proven in a court of law. Anything.

You know, there is nothing I hate more than an idiot Yankee who thinks the common soldier in the Confederate Army gave a happy damn about some rich jerk's slaves. You lunatics were murdering our people and burning our crops. Your troops came and ran away with the bird that was supposed to be on our table for Christmas dinner. What were we supposed to do except try to defend our land?

My answer is this. Come down here to North Carolina, and visit some of the grave yards where some of our boys are buried. We actually lost more of our kids in that damn war than most states. There is a historic cemetery called Historic Oakwood Cemetery. There is a section where many Confederate dead were buried. Take a walk through there, and ask yourself, "would it have been worth it? Would there have been any sense in it?"

If you don't have a weak stomach, consider watching Cold Mountain. Think about the boy screaming for his life in that film. Maybe he could have been your best friend. Maybe he could have been your brother. Maybe he could have been you. He was looking into the dark, and there was no light.

No, they had no right. Getting into that god-forsaken war was indefensible.

[Ceannairceach]

Did it have the right? No

Should it have had the right? Yes. All citizens, states, etc. etc. should have the freedom to choose where they reside. So long as the individual owns the land, and is prepared to completely support themselves, entering into a social contract that is citizenship should be a choice, not an obligation.

The same could be said for the forced labor of slaves in the south.

[Ceannairceach]

Yes they had. And the US government should have let them, too, in exhange of putting an end to slavery.

How would of letting the south secede put an end to slavery, precisely?

[Xsyne]

I think the OP is asking the wrong set of questions. Legality is an uncertain subject, and it always has been. Just about anything can be proven in a court of law. Anything.

You know, there is nothing I hate more than an idiot Yankee who thinks the common soldier in the Confederate Army gave a happy damn about some rich jerk's slaves. You lunatics were murdering our people and burning our crops. Your troops came and ran away with the bird that was supposed to be on our table for Christmas dinner. What were we supposed to do except try to defend our land?

My answer is this. Come down here to North Carolina, and visit some of the grave yards where some of our boys are buried. We actually lost more of our kids in that damn war than most states. There is a historic cemetery called Historic Oakwood Cemetery. There is a section where many Confederate dead were buried. Take a walk through there, and ask yourself, "would it have been worth it? Would there have been any sense in it?"

If you don't have a weak stomach, consider watching Cold Mountain. Think about the boy screaming for his life in that film. Maybe he could have been your best friend. Maybe he could have been your brother. Maybe he could have been you. He was looking into the dark, and there was no light.

No, they had no right. Getting into that god-forsaken war was indefensible.

The Union lost at least one hundred thousand more people than the Confederacy, which, may I remind you, invaded the Union. Cry me a river.

And given that the Confederate army slaughtered Union troops that had surrendered simply because they were black, I'm not going to shed a tear for them.

[Desori]

Did it have the right? No

Should it have had the right? Yes. All citizens, states, etc. etc. should have the freedom to choose where they reside. So long as the individual owns the land, and is prepared to completely support themselves, entering into a social contract that is citizenship should be a choice, not an obligation.

The same could be said for the forced labor of slaves in the south.

No doubt. But this isn't about slavery. This is about whether a state or area has the right to secede from a larger body. I believe it should. Why the south seceded is another matter, but whether it was allowed to/should have been allowed to is what I'm focusing on. I'm no Southern, I'm Irish born and bred. I simply believe that people should have the right to choose.

[Ceannairceach]

The same could be said for the forced labor of slaves in the south.

No doubt. But this isn't about slavery. This is about whether a state or area has the right to secede from a larger body. I believe it should. Why the south seceded is another matter, but whether it was allowed to/should have been allowed to is what I'm focusing on. I'm no Southern, I'm Irish born and bred. I simply believe that people should have the right to choose.

And if that state denies others the same right, it is my opinion that they shouldn't have the right to choose until they rectify their failures.

[Neaglia]

What the South did was a blatant act of treason. The Civil War was over the issue of slavery, which is morally wrong and could not be allowed to continue to exist in America. Any discussion of "State's Rights" is irrelevant when those "rights" are being used to oppress an entire race

[Desori]

No doubt. But this isn't about slavery. This is about whether a state or area has the right to secede from a larger body. I believe it should. Why the south seceded is another matter, but whether it was allowed to/should have been allowed to is what I'm focusing on. I'm no Southern, I'm Irish born and bred. I simply believe that people should have the right to choose.

And if that state denies others the same right, it is my opinion that they shouldn't have the right to choose until they rectify their failures.

That's a fair point, and I can't find a counter argument other than this - who decides who's rights have been violated, and who decides they're rectified? Does simply releasing a slave make up for having enslaved them in the first place? What other rights apply to this? Surely, it makes more sense to allow the state to secede, and then deal with the human rights abuses, rather than trying to fix them before allowing the state to secede?

[Sarzonia]

Had the Articles of Confederation remained in place, yes.

However, the problems that came about as a result of a too-weak central government led to the adoption of the Constitution. Bye bye right to secession.

[Vazeckta]

I think they did have a right to secede; as to my knowledge there was nothing in the Constitution saying they couldn't, at the time. The way I look at it was that the Confederacy was another nation, and the US conquered it, and absorbed it. That's why I like the "war between the states" better than the Civil War. I also find "The War of Northern Aggression" funny and want to use it in a school paper for the lulz.

[Ceannairceach]

And if that state denies others the same right, it is my opinion that they shouldn't have the right to choose until they rectify their failures.

That's a fair point, and I can't find a counter argument other than this - who decides who's rights have been violated, and who decides they're rectified? Does simply releasing a slave make up for having enslaved them in the first place? What other rights apply to this? Surely, it makes more sense to allow the state to secede, and then deal with the human rights abuses, rather than trying to fix them before allowing the state to secede?

Naturally, if the state wished to secede, they would bring their human rights up to snuff with the organization they wished to secede from at the very least. That isn't very much to ask, is it?

I disagree with your "Surely". Considering the obvious bend of the Southern states to keep slavery, I doubt the problem would have been fixed at all until the nation collapsed due to the slavery. If they wanted to secede, they should have proven that they were able to be at the very least as good, humanely, as its original form.

[Desori]

That's a fair point, and I can't find a counter argument other than this - who decides who's rights have been violated, and who decides they're rectified? Does simply releasing a slave make up for having enslaved them in the first place? What other rights apply to this? Surely, it makes more sense to allow the state to secede, and then deal with the human rights abuses, rather than trying to fix them before allowing the state to secede?

Naturally, if the state wished to secede, they would bring their human rights up to snuff with the organization they wished to secede from at the very least. That isn't very much to ask, is it?

I disagree with your "Surely". Considering the obvious bend of the Southern states to keep slavery, I doubt the problem would have been fixed at all until the nation collapsed due to the slavery. If they wanted to secede, they should have proven that they were able to be at the very least as good, humanely, as its original form.

Depending who you asked, it could be a lot. While this doesn't apply to the slavery thing (or maybe it does), some states to be mightn't have the budget to fix the abuses. Should they be denied their freedoms due to lack of money?

Again, I'm just picking holes. I really don't disagree with you - slavery is wrong, and to secede because you're not allowed abuse other human beings is ridiculous, childish, and god damn wrong. But my questions are valid, and I'm just thinking out loud, really.

[REMNEX]

What south do you mean ?

[Farnhamia]

What south do you mean ?

The ones in dark green on this map.

[Ceannairceach]

Naturally, if the state wished to secede, they would bring their human rights up to snuff with the organization they wished to secede from at the very least. That isn't very much to ask, is it?

I disagree with your "Surely". Considering the obvious bend of the Southern states to keep slavery, I doubt the problem would have been fixed at all until the nation collapsed due to the slavery. If they wanted to secede, they should have proven that they were able to be at the very least as good, humanely, as its original form.

Depending who you asked, it could be a lot. While this doesn't apply to the slavery thing (or maybe it does), some states to be mightn't have the budget to fix the abuses. Should they be denied their freedoms due to lack of money?

In which case, intent could be used to justify secession. The northern states didn't, as I recall, just up and say "OK, slavery's done. You can all go home now." One may ease into it. But the lack of intent to solve anything hardly showed the South had the ability to solve its own human right's problems, let alone the resolve to.

[ImperialPoland]

No, it did not. There is nothing in the US constitution that says a state can leave the Union. This is exactly what Lincoln thought throughout the Civil War, he beleived the southern states had never actually left the Union because it wasn't allowed; in fact, he viewed them as simply acting out like "bad little boys and girls". This is what prompted his 10% plan for the south's reconstruction following the war, but of course he was assassinated and Congress decided to make up their own plan for reconstructing the South, one that essentially accepted that they had left the Union by punishing them so stringently.

Should it have left the Union? Yes and no. The reason the South left was because of constant alienation from both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. With the Republican party, a political entity made up of former free-soilers, former abolitionists, ect, gained power in Congress, it freaked the South out, they were under the impression the Slavery would be made illegal and they would lose their source of man power and labor. The North of course had nothing to lose because its labor came from immigration. Now, With the election of Lincoln, this was a final straw, not only did these anti-slavery politicians control Congress, they also controlled the presidency. However, Lincoln's campaign and actual position on slavery was not to make it illegal, but to save the Union at all costs(his motto during the Civil War). Even with the Proclamation of Emancipation, Lincoln wasn't freeing all slaves, he was simply stating his views on slavery to the public and Congress, nothing more. One could debate that it was an executive order i suppose, but IMO it wasn't. I could go into that but don't feel like it right now. Basically, going back to the point, the South should not have seceded; it had neither the industrial strength, nor the man power to support a civil war. Just about the only advantage the South had was a reason to fight and defend "their" land.

[Desori]

Depending who you asked, it could be a lot. While this doesn't apply to the slavery thing (or maybe it does), some states to be mightn't have the budget to fix the abuses. Should they be denied their freedoms due to lack of money?

In which case, intent could be used to justify secession. The northern states didn't, as I recall, just up and say "OK, slavery's done. You can all go home now." One may ease into it. But the lack of intent to solve anything hardly showed the South had the ability to solve its own human right's problems, let alone the resolve to.

But that makes things subjective, and in often cases, the state to be wishing to secede is seceding from an authoritarian state that will claim the intent is not justified.

[Ceannairceach]

In which case, intent could be used to justify secession. The northern states didn't, as I recall, just up and say "OK, slavery's done. You can all go home now." One may ease into it. But the lack of intent to solve anything hardly showed the South had the ability to solve its own human right's problems, let alone the resolve to.

But that makes things subjective, and in often cases, the state to be wishing to secede is seceding from an authoritarian state that will claim the intent is not justified.

In which case an outside authority may decide that the determined intent has been implied or the rights troubles rectified.

[Desori]

But that makes things subjective, and in often cases, the state to be wishing to secede is seceding from an authoritarian state that will claim the intent is not justified.

In which case an outside authority may decide that the determined intent has been implied or the rights troubles rectified.

This is getting awfully complicated. Allowing nations to secede as a god-given right, and examining and enforcing human rights laws upon all nations seems much more logical than a huge review process for something that if refused will still be preached as tyrannical, and will likely de-facto secede, even if not truly a separate state.

[Ceannairceach]

In which case an outside authority may decide that the determined intent has been implied or the rights troubles rectified.

This is getting awfully complicated. Allowing nations to secede as a god-given right, and examining and enforcing human rights laws upon all nations seems much more logical than a huge review process for something that if refused will still be preached as tyrannical, and will likely de-facto secede, even if not truly a separate state.

Then they would be punished by the nation's specific laws on secession.

As to the rest, I'd rather these troubles be rectified before the state rise and gain sovereignty to decide what it wants to do within its borders.

[Desori]

As to the rest, I'd rather these troubles be rectified before the state rise and gain sovereignty to decide what it wants to do within its borders.

That's a fair point.

[Farnhamia]

In which case an outside authority may decide that the determined intent has been implied or the rights troubles rectified.

This is getting awfully complicated. Allowing nations to secede as a god-given right, and examining and enforcing human rights laws upon all nations seems much more logical than a huge review process for something that if refused will still be preached as tyrannical, and will likely de-facto secede, even if not truly a separate state.

A "god-given" right? Which god? That's easily the silliest thing I've heard in this argument so far.

[Desori]

By god given right I meant that they automatically had the right. Birth-right, if you will. All people have the right to be free, do they not? Or if they don't, do you not agree they should?

[Ceannairceach]

By god given right I meant that they automatically had the right. Birth-right, if you will. All people have the right to be free, do they not? Or if they don't, do you not agree they should?

Agreed, but freedom to oppress others? That isn't a given right.