Did the South have a right to secede?

[Distruzio]

<perfect!>

See, we aren't so different afterall! I'm a big fan of Spooner as well.

[Seleucas]

<perfect!>

See, we aren't so different afterall! I'm a big fan of Spooner as well.

Maybe you are my long-lost twin, or something...

[Austin Setzer]

We LET them leave, unwillingly of course, but we did, then the South attacked the Union FIRST of fort sumter, so we beat them, annexed them, and fixed them. So in a way, they are an annexed country, and EVERYONE is fine with that.

[Grave_n_idle]

We LET them leave, unwillingly of course, but we did, then the South attacked the Union FIRST of fort sumter, so we beat them, annexed them, and fixed them. So in a way, they are an annexed country, and EVERYONE is fine with that.

The Confederacy never achieved recognition as a sovereign entity. Hindsight being perfect, the history of the Civil War might have been different if conflict with the North could have been delayed until after that recognition was gained.

[Big Jim P]

Yes, and for whatever reason, good or bad. Just as the North had the right to conquer the South. Both side need to get over this.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes, and for whatever reason, good or bad. Just as the North had the right to conquer the South. Both side need to get over this.

Why do you think they had the 'right' to secede? The evidence seems to suggest exactly the opposite.

[Big Jim P]

Yes, and for whatever reason, good or bad. Just as the North had the right to conquer the South. Both side need to get over this.

Why do you think they had the 'right' to secede? The evidence seems to suggest exactly the opposite.

They had the exact same right to secede from the Union that the States had to secede from England. They failed. So be it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Why do you think they had the 'right' to secede? The evidence seems to suggest exactly the opposite.

They had the exact same right to secede from the Union that the States had to secede from England.

Not an answer.

Given that at least one source (Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) seems to argue categorically against a 'right to secede', what source, of equal merit, grants such a 'right'?

[Big Jim P]

They had the exact same right to secede from the Union that the States had to secede from England.

Not an answer.

Given that at least one source (Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) seems to argue categorically against a 'right to secede', what source, of equal merit, grants such a 'right'?

The Declaration of Independence gives the circumstances under which a people may sever political ties.

Edit: Oh, and it was an answer. It just required open eyes. (Attached minds these days are just a bonus).

[Grave_n_idle]

The Declaration of Independence gives the circumstances under which a people may sever political ties.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document, it's a statement of justification.

It's certainly not 'of equal merit' to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Edit: Oh, and it was an answer.

No, it wasn't. You were asked for a source, and you suggested a possible parallel with a different unsourced claim.

It was a response, and it contained words. But it wasn't an answer.

[Big Jim P]

The Declaration of Independence gives the circumstances under which a people may sever political ties.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document, it's a statement of justification.

It's certainly not 'of equal merit' to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Edit: Oh, and it was an answer.

No, it wasn't. You were asked for a source, and you suggested a possible parallel with a different unsourced claim.

It was a response, and it contained words. But it wasn't an answer.

Alas, it did. In the form of an unbinding document which Americans hold rather dear. I would say that the Declaration of Independence trumps all the legalistic bullshit. The only difference between the American Revolution, and the Southern Secession, is that one succeeded, and one failed when it came down to enforcing claimed rights.

[Grave_n_idle]

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document, it's a statement of justification.

It's certainly not 'of equal merit' to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.



No, it wasn't. You were asked for a source, and you suggested a possible parallel with a different unsourced claim.

It was a response, and it contained words. But it wasn't an answer.

Alas, it did. In the form of an unbinding document which Americans hold rather dear. I would say that the Declaration of Independence trumps all the legalistic bullshit. The only difference between the American Revolution, and the Southern Secession, is that one succeeded, and one failed when it came down to enforcing claimed rights.

You're arguing that a non-legally-binding document trumps a legally-binding document in the discussion over whether there was a legally recognisable 'right'.

Further, if I'm reading you right, you're making this argument because of sentiment.

I'm not sure you really understood the question.

I'm also not sure you understood what the American Revolution was about.

[Felbah]

Simple really. Did the Confederacy have the right to secede from the Union? Were the states simply exercising their rights, or were they going against the honoured Constitution, which is so revered in America.

I believe that the states had an irrovocable right to secede from the Union. They were equal members of it, and had the right to enter and leave. This makes the Union, and by extension, the Yankees, currently having a puppet government in South Carolina, Missisipi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennesee and Texas.

"Oh, I'm a good old rebel
Now thats just what I am
And for this yankee nation
I do no give a damn.

I'm glad I fit (fought) against 'er (her)
I only wish we'd won
I ain't asked any pardon
For anything I've done.

I hates the Yankee nation
And eveything they do
I hates the declaration
Of independence too.

I hates the glorious union
'Tis dripping with our blood
I hates the striped banner
And fit (fought) it all I could."

Read more: http://artists.letssingit.com/hoyt-axton-lyrics-im-a-good-old-rebel-8v3bsjg

Simple really. They hated the union, and they hated the declaration and everything it stood for.

[Big Jim P]

Alas, it did. In the form of an unbinding document which Americans hold rather dear. I would say that the Declaration of Independence trumps all the legalistic bullshit. The only difference between the American Revolution, and the Southern Secession, is that one succeeded, and one failed when it came down to enforcing claimed rights.

You're arguing that a non-legally-binding document trumps a legally-binding document in the discussion over whether there was a legally recognisable 'right'.

Further, if I'm reading you right, you're making this argument because of sentiment.

I'm not sure you really understood the question.

I'm also not sure you understood what the American Revolution was about.

"Legally-binding" only matters up until the bullets start flying.

The Declaration applies here as well. The South had the EXACT same legal right to secede as the Colonies did. They simply failed when the bullets started flying.

Do you think the American Revolutionaries were acting in a legal manner? From certain points of view, they were merely traitors and rebels against the LEGAL authority of the Crown.

Edit: And you would be arguing (redundantly as it were) from the same sentiment I am, just from the opposite point of view.

[Grave_n_idle]

"Legally-binding" only matters up until the bullets start flying.

No, given that the question is about whether the South had a right to secede, 'legally binding' is arguably the only thing that DOES matter.

The 'bullets flying' is what came after, and it can't change the fact of whether or not there was a pre-existing 'right'.

The Declaration applies here as well. The South had the EXACT same legal right to secede as the Colonies did.

No, they didn't. And the Declaration does not 'apply' to secession within the Union, being specific justification for the already ongoing war between the colonies and the crown.

Do you think the American Revolutionaries were acting in a legal manner? From certain points of view, they were merely traitors and rebels against the LEGAL authority of the Crown.

The American revolutionaries had a legal claim. If you ignore all the 'natural rights' hippy-shit, the Declaration was based on the idea that the colonies and Crown were engaged in a form of contract which the Crown was failing to fulfill... and, as such, the colonies had no requirement to fulfill their end of the bargain. The 'right' to revolt, they assert, was inherent in the specific laws under which the 'contract' existed.

I, personally, don't think it's a great argument, or the right way to have resolved the issue... but that's a different matter.

On the other hand, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union specifically prohibit secession... the 'right' to secede is specifically denied in the specific laws under which the contract existed.

The two things are completely dissimilar.

[Seleucas]

You're arguing that a non-legally-binding document trumps a legally-binding document in the discussion over whether there was a legally recognisable 'right'.

Further, if I'm reading you right, you're making this argument because of sentiment.

I'm not sure you really understood the question.

I'm also not sure you understood what the American Revolution was about.

"Legally-binding" only matters up until the bullets start flying.

The Declaration applies here as well. The South had the EXACT same legal right to secede as the Colonies did. They simply failed when the bullets started flying.

Do you think the American Revolutionaries were acting in a legal manner? From certain points of view, they were merely traitors and rebels against the LEGAL authority of the Crown.

Edit: And you would be arguing (redundantly as it were) from the same sentiment I am, just from the opposite point of view.

TBH, had the South won, in all likelihood this thread would not exist and there would be far fewer people arguing against the legality of the South's secession on any grounds.

[Grave_n_idle]

"Legally-binding" only matters up until the bullets start flying.

The Declaration applies here as well. The South had the EXACT same legal right to secede as the Colonies did. They simply failed when the bullets started flying.

Do you think the American Revolutionaries were acting in a legal manner? From certain points of view, they were merely traitors and rebels against the LEGAL authority of the Crown.

Edit: And you would be arguing (redundantly as it were) from the same sentiment I am, just from the opposite point of view.

TBH, had the South won, in all likelihood this thread would not exist and there would be far fewer people arguing against the legality of the South's secession on any grounds.

That's probably true, because no one would care by now - just like the English don't care about the 'American Revolution'.

If the American Revolution had been effectively suppressed, on the other hand, the colonists would probably still be complaining about it, and the issue of 'rights' would still be being resurrected in debate.

The arguments for Southern 'rights' to secede are still debated because people in the South are still sore.

[GeneralHaNor]

TBH, had the South won, in all likelihood this thread would not exist and there would be far fewer people arguing against the legality of the South's secession on any grounds.

That's probably true, because no one would care by now - just like the English don't care about the 'American Revolution'.

If the American Revolution had been effectively suppressed, on the other hand, the colonists would probably still be complaining about it, and the issue of 'rights' would still be being resurrected in debate.

The arguments for Southern 'rights' to secede are still debated because people in the South are still sore.

Occupational Governments tend to have that effect on Conquered People

[Tekania]

Just so you know, my ancestors are a bit tired of having their corpses drug out every few months for another one of these threads.

[Shadowlandistan]

I wish they did, but that the Union still made them give up slavery. A lot of the cultural ignorance/conservatism comes from the south, so the USA would be MUCH better off without them, and their votes.

[The Cat-Tribe]

That's probably true, because no one would care by now - just like the English don't care about the 'American Revolution'.

If the American Revolution had been effectively suppressed, on the other hand, the colonists would probably still be complaining about it, and the issue of 'rights' would still be being resurrected in debate.

The arguments for Southern 'rights' to secede are still debated because people in the South are still sore.

Occupational Governments tend to have that effect on Conquered People

Especially if we don't consider the 39% of the population of the Confederacy that were slaves to be "people."

And we disregard the fact that a not insignificant portion of the "white" population never supported secession.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Just so you know, my ancestors are a bit tired of having their corpses drug out every few months for another one of these threads.

Although I realize I am a contributor to this problem, I feel for you.

Much of my family tree is made up of Confederates. I just am not blinded to the flaws in the cause for which the fought. (Just as I am not blind to many injustices and mistakes made by the United States, the North, etc.)

[The Cat-Tribe]

<perfect!>

See, we aren't so different afterall! I'm a big fan of Spooner as well.

There is a good deal to admire about Lysander Spooner and he gives much food for thought.

I must note, however, parts of his popular "No Treason" argument are absurd. The idea of individual consent as a prerequiste authority is one I am sure appeals to anarchists and I won't debate that here.

The example of a particularly bad argument Spooner makes is a legal argument based on contract law. See, e.g., No. 6, IV-V. He claims the Constitution is not a valid contract because (1) it is not individual signed and (2) it is not individually delivered. There are several problems with this:

1. It is rather circular and bizarre to rebut the law of the land based on concepts of law, particularly when no law that has ever existed in the geographic region of the United States or England would satisfy the precursors Spooner sets forth as necessary for law to exist.
   
   
2. Spooner is simply wrong about contract law. As it is now, as it was then, and as it has been in the history of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Contracts need not be signed by every party to be valid. (They don't even have to be written). Similarly, they do not have to be physically delivered.

EDIT: Oops. Left out link.

[GeneralHaNor]

Occupational Governments tend to have that effect on Conquered People

Especially if we don't consider the 39% of the population of the Confederacy that were slaves to be "people."

And we disregard the fact that a not insignificant portion of the "white" population never supported secession.

I reject Tyranny of the Majority as much as I Reject Rule by the Margins.

But to say Secession wasn't a Democratic process is a flat-out lie.

[GeneralHaNor]

[*] Spooner is simply wrong about contract law. As it is now, as it was then, and as it has been in the history of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Contracts need not be signed by every party to be valid. (They don't even have to be written). Similarly, they do not have to be physically delivered. [/list]

A contract that doesn't have to be written, delivered or signed.....can be valid?

So you sold my your house yesterday right?
I'm coming to pick up my keys