Did the South have a right to secede?

[Distruzio]

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.

The evidence suggests nothing of the sort, GnI. And you know it.

[Distruzio]

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., [url]No. 6[/url], 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.

Considering his anarchist leanings... I'd say he knew exactly what he was saying and intended it to prove that the contract law was illegitimate on the very basis you claim it is legitimate.

If I didn't sign it, it is of no authority.

[Grave_n_idle]

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

The evidence suggests nothing of the sort, GnI. And you know it.

On the contrary, since the only 'argument' that has been presented against the precedence of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union amounts to little more than 'nuh uh!' and 'but I don't like it', I'm going to have to say that the evidence suggests exactly that, and you know it.

[Austross]

Everyone has the right to secede if they deem their country to be oppressive/bureaucratic. Whether or not the south had a decent reason for secession is a different story but everyone has the right to secede from their country as a right if you ask me.

[Inky Noodles]

just because something said they could not leave, does not mean they wont. They were their own country, who cares down there if they left?

[Greed and Death]

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., [url]No. 6[/url], 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.

Considering his anarchist leanings... I'd say he knew exactly what he was saying and intended it to prove that the contract law was illegitimate on the very basis you claim it is legitimate.

If I didn't sign it, it is of no authority.

I do not think it is useful to compare the Constitution to a standard Contract.

A social contract is not so much a legal term it is simply more of a functioning of society.

[Farnhamia]

Everyone has the right to secede if they deem their country to be oppressive/bureaucratic. Whether or not the south had a decent reason for secession is a different story but everyone has the right to secede from their country as a right if you ask me.

Bureaucracy is a reason to secede?

[Greed and Death]

Everyone has the right to secede if they deem their country to be oppressive/bureaucratic. Whether or not the south had a decent reason for secession is a different story but everyone has the right to secede from their country as a right if you ask me.

Bureaucracy is a reason to secede?

IF by secede he means renounce ones citizenship he is right.

[Hushab]

Bureaucracy is a reason to secede?

IF by secede he means renounce ones citizenship he is right.

by what measure are we defining "right"? Is a "right" what was given to them in the constitution? Or is something else?

If it's what's in the constitution, then for sure no. They had reasons, but no "right" by that measure.

[Caotic chaos]

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.

they used to say the united states are. now they say the united states is. the south had no right to secede, espeacially over the issues over which they seceded.

[Hushab]

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.

they used to say the united states are. now they say the united states is. the south had no right to secede, espeacially over the issues over which they seceded.

inside the Constitution, I agree with you, but outside of it, if the people of the South felt it necessary to secede, by the nature of democracy, they did have a right to secede. And then the North had a right to burn the South to the ground.

[Saint Charlene Richards Catholic Kingdom]

first lincoln wanted to get rid of slavery so he could send blacks back to africa iv seen old text books that states this claim north and south.The southerners just didnt want to et rid of cheap labor. After the south seceded lincoln kept his soldiers in the south and the south warned them they were gonna attack and lincoln still refused so they attacked. A nd he used the proclamation to free slaves so they would join the army for him.But even though the emicipation proclamation they had this black soldier who wanted to join the confederates so he could protect his family because the union were destroying everything he then asked the union when they occupied the area he was in with the same reason.

[Saint Charlene Richards Catholic Kingdom]

first lincoln wanted to get rid of slavery so he could send blacks back to africa iv seen old text books that states this claim north and south.The southerners just didnt want to et rid of cheap labor. After the south seceded lincoln kept his soldiers in the south and the south warned them they were gonna attack and lincoln still refused so they attacked. A nd he used the proclamation to free slaves so they would join the army for him.But even though the emicipation proclamation they had this black soldier who wanted to join the confederates so he could protect his family because the union were destroying everything he then asked the union when they occupied the area he was in with the same reason.

[Hushab]

first lincoln wanted to get rid of slavery so he could send blacks back to africa iv seen old text books that states this claim north and south.The southerners just didnt want to et rid of cheap labor. After the south seceded lincoln kept his soldiers in the south and the south warned them they were gonna attack and lincoln still refused so they attacked. A nd he used the proclamation to free slaves so they would join the army for him.But even though the emicipation proclamation they had this black soldier who wanted to join the confederates so he could protect his family because the union were destroying everything he then asked the union when they occupied the area he was in with the same reason.

you do realize that "this one slave" who wanted to fight for the confederacy is an outlier and not the norm. I could say that humans enjoy setting themselves on fire because "one guy did that one time" but I don't. And what old textbooks? And (according to Wikipedia. Sorry) only about 2% of soldiers on the northern side of the war were draftees with 6% being paid substitutes. So 92% chose to go to war (counting the paid substitutes. This is me being generous).

[Greed and Death]

first lincoln wanted to get rid of slavery so he could send blacks back to africa iv seen old text books that states this claim north and south.The southerners just didnt want to et rid of cheap labor. After the south seceded lincoln kept his soldiers in the south and the south warned them they were gonna attack and lincoln still refused so they attacked. A nd he used the proclamation to free slaves so they would join the army for him.But even though the emicipation proclamation they had this black soldier who wanted to join the confederates so he could protect his family because the union were destroying everything he then asked the union when they occupied the area he was in with the same reason.

you do realize that "this one slave" who wanted to fight for the confederacy is an outlier and not the norm. I could say that humans enjoy setting themselves on fire because "one guy did that one time" but I don't. And what old textbooks? And (according to Wikipedia. Sorry) only about 2% of soldiers on the northern side of the war were draftees with 6% being paid substitutes. So 92% chose to go to war (counting the paid substitutes. This is me being generous).

I remember that outlier uncle ruckus the pro south slave.

[The Cat-Tribe]

[*] 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

Go buy a clue. If I actually explain the law to you, you'll just moan about an "appeal to law" and "legal positivism."

But, I am curious: in your dimension, are oral contracts nonexistent?

[The Cat-Tribe]

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., [url]No. 6[/url], 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.

Considering his anarchist leanings... I'd say he knew exactly what he was saying and intended it to prove that the contract law was illegitimate on the very basis you claim it is legitimate.

If I didn't sign it, it is of no authority.

That is a very nice pipedream for you to believe, but (as someone you claims to have read Spooner) you know that is not what he argued. Not even close.

[Greed and Death]

IF by secede he means renounce ones citizenship he is right.

by what measure are we defining "right"? Is a "right" what was given to them in the constitution? Or is something else?

If it's what's in the constitution, then for sure no. They had reasons, but no "right" by that measure.

The right to pack up and move to a another country is well established, the US was founded on it, and we fought the war of 1812 in part to ensure that right for others to do the same.

The only time this I do not want to be a citizen comes up is when a person or groups of persons attempts to renounce citizenship while remaining in place, and attempts to form a new government in said place.

Their private property rights then run into community property rights.

[Caotic chaos]

The American Civil War was as unjust a war as this country has ever waged. I don't believe we should forcibly hold on to any state or territory whose people desire independence. What are we? The Soviet Union, or Yugoslavia? The US is a union of states, and this union must be voluntary, otherwise it means nothing. Remember that our own American Revolution was itself a war of secession. Did the Continental Congress lack legitimacy?
If any American state ever believes itself to be treated like a colony by a distant administration that cares nothing for its happiness, and is determined to maintain this association at the point of a gun, wouldn't we prove these sentiments to be true by launching an attack? I think it'd be better to allow the breakaway state or states to go in peace. Why must we be enemies? We could still trade, visit each other, and cooperate on some issues. We might even retain a common currency.
If I'd lived at the time of the Civil War, I'd probably have been what people at that time called a "Copperhead" or "Peace Democrat." And if I'd been unable to keep quiet, which is very likely, President Lincoln and Gereral Burnside might have had me arrested for sedition, and thrown into Camp Douglas to rot.

the u.s is not a u.n like body for its states. the revgolution was a different time, the colonies started out mostly for themselves and the articles of confederation held no power whatsoever.

[Caotic chaos]

they used to say the united states are. now they say the united states is. the south had no right to secede, espeacially over the issues over which they seceded.

inside the Constitution, I agree with you, but outside of it, if the people of the South felt it necessary to secede, by the nature of democracy, they did have a right to secede. And then the North had a right to burn the South to the ground.

if the south had successfully seceded, it would have ruined the ideals the nation was founded on. america was meant to be a natyion of all people, a place where they can rule themselves and have basic rights and freedoms. what the south stood for, and the very nature of what they were trying to do, is the opposite of that.

[Greed and Death]

inside the Constitution, I agree with you, but outside of it, if the people of the South felt it necessary to secede, by the nature of democracy, they did have a right to secede. And then the North had a right to burn the South to the ground.

if the south had successfully seceded, it would have ruined the ideals the nation was founded on. america was meant to be a natyion of all people, a place where they can rule themselves and have basic rights and freedoms. what the south stood for, and the very nature of what they were trying to do, is the opposite of that.

They were trying to rule themselves in a different country much as the US did when it left the Britain.

[Ceannairceach]

if the south had successfully seceded, it would have ruined the ideals the nation was founded on. america was meant to be a natyion of all people, a place where they can rule themselves and have basic rights and freedoms. what the south stood for, and the very nature of what they were trying to do, is the opposite of that.

They were trying to rule themselves in a different country much as the US did when it left the Britain.

Such a statement implies that the southern secession was in any way similar to the American secession.

[Greed and Death]

They were trying to rule themselves in a different country much as the US did when it left the Britain.

Such a statement implies that the southern secession was in any way similar to the American secession.

Yeah they were.

[Hellenic Protectorates]

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.

They had every right. Constitutional rights outlined in the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and many individual State Constitutions.

The North, on the other hand, raised an army against a peaceful secession movement, imposed martial law and revocations of Writs of Habeus Corpus in it's own territory to remove dissent or support for the movement, militarily subdued it's own citizenry acting completely within the law but dissenting with the national government, who was acting against the law, and finally, after the war, created undemocratic, puppet governments within every state that had the nerve to legally secede.

But, you know, the war was really about slavery.
That is what the North said, isn't it? They won, so they must be right.

[Hellenic Protectorates]

They were trying to rule themselves in a different country much as the US did when it left the Britain.

Such a statement implies that the southern secession was in any way similar to the American secession.

Almost exactly the same.