NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday was the anniversary of the election of Jefferson Davis to the Presidency of the Confederate States of America. He was to serve a six-year term, but was forced to resign early when the CSA was reunited with the Union.

Assume for a moment that the Confederacy was not a racist oligarchy that was looking to medieval England for a model of government--I'm exaggerating, but it was pretty bad. The South tried to secede. The colonies did the same from Great Britain, and few Americans believe that was disloyal. On the other hand, the British Isle does not border the US, and the grievances of the South were different from those of the colonists. Do you think the South have the right to try to leave the US?

Yesterday was the anniversary of the election of Jefferson Davis to the Presidency of the Confederate States of America. He was to serve a six-year term, but was forced to resign early when the CSA was reunited with the Union.

Assume for a moment that the Confederacy was not a racist oligarchy that was looking to medieval England for a model of government--I'm exaggerating, but it was pretty bad. The South tried to secede. The colonies did the same from Great Britain, and few Americans believe that was disloyal. On the other hand, the British Isle does not border the US, and the grievances of the South were different from those of the colonists. Do you think the South have the right to try to leave the US?

Of course. I can not think of one good reason for secession to not be a viable right.

Of course. I can not think of one good reason for secession to not be a viable right.

me neither, though i can think of a number of reasonable seeming restrictions on the use of that right

As states, they had every right, but since every person in those states was a member of the union, and as a member of the union secession is treason and rebellion, then no, they can't. Unless they were alive when the state originally entered the union, they had no right to secede. Of course, this is relative to the United States itself; if their arguments were correct and the North really was trying to destroy them, then their basic rights supersede those of the duty to the nation.

However, seeing as their arguments, even society, was based on the idea that
1.) Ethnicity is an accurate indicator of worth, value, potential, and intelligence;
and
2.) A particular ethnic group is superior to any of the others;
Their arguments are of course false. Additionally, the egregious violation of the civil rights of any population warrants force to remove and resolve, and the loss of property is irrelevant when the property in question is a living, thinking being able to make his/her own decisions. The economy's well being comes after the rights of the citizens, not before.

The south wished to conserve its way of life, an understandable and admirable goal; the North, however, was not trying to destroy it and their rights, which was the largest reason for secession. Unless the government is oppressive, destructive, and contrary to your inalienable rights (yes, I did say that), then you have no right or need to secede or rebel; the duty falls upon you to either leave (if possible) or work within the system to change it. Citizenship of a country, to my knowledge, is completely voluntary; I know for a fact that this was the case in the US. If you cannot leave without losing all that you own, have, and need, then you have to choose: is the government oppressive enough to forsake your former life, or can you deal with it?

me neither, though i can think of a number of reasonable seeming restrictions on the use of that right

I have a feeling I know where you are going with this, but explain.

I have a feeling I know where you are going with this, but explain.

well, the obvious ones are things like "no seceding against the wishes of the people in the territory you intend to take with you" or "no seceding specifically so you may oppress people". but i'm wondering if it might be arguable that there should be limitations placed on seceding if doing so in some direct way fundamentally undermines the future existence of the remains of the original nation - if the secession literally clears the way for the fascist tanks (that have been just waiting for an opportunity) to roll into the original country's capital, for example.

The south wished to conserve its way of life, an understandable and admirable goal; the North, however, was not trying to destroy it and their rights, which was the largest reason for secession. Unless the government is oppressive, destructive, and contrary to your inalienable rights (yes, I did say that), then you have no right or need to secede or rebel; the duty falls upon you to either leave (if possible) or work within the system to change it. Citizenship of a country, to my knowledge, is completely voluntary; I know for a fact that this was the case in the US. If you cannot leave without losing all that you own, have, and need, then you have to choose: is the government oppressive enough to forsake your former life, or can you deal with it?

That's my view. Secession is sometimes necessary, but if it's not, the government should be allowed to try to keep its country united. In the case of the Southern secession, it was not justified.

Ok, my first real thought on this issue was that government should only government by consent, along the lines of Spooner.

Then I thought that secession from my point of view is pretty much a non-issue, at least until it is reduced down to individual rebellion. No state is acceptable, and so secession to create a new state is hardly an improvement. This is particularly a response to certain issues where abuse can arise, where an oppressors secedes in order to oppress.

Then it occurred to me that two separate democracies are closer to unanimity than one so secession is an inherent good.

In other words, I am torn like an old sweater.

well, the obvious ones are things like "no seceding against the wishes of the people in the territory you intend to take with you" or "no seceding specifically so you may oppress people". but i'm wondering if it might be arguable that there should be limitations placed on seceding if doing so in some direct way fundamentally undermines the future existence of the remains of the original nation - if the secession literally clears the way for the fascist tanks (that have been just waiting for an opportunity) to roll into the original country's capital, for example.

I think if your latter limitation is valid, then so is a draft, and other seeming wrongs.

I think if your latter limitation is valid, then so is a draft, and other seeming wrongs.

interestingly, i was actually thinking of an argument by david friedman (i think) about the draft when i was writing that

interestingly, i was actually thinking of an argument by david friedman (i think) about the draft when i was writing that

Was he making a pro-argument along the lines of your statements?

Was he making a pro-argument along the lines of your statements?

sorta

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html

sorta

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html

I had actually read that, but for separate issues entirely and had forgotten about that part.

All I can say is that utilitarians usually have difficulty with cut-off points, but as he shows, who doesn't?

EDIT: Natural rights libertarians just won't bring themselves to admit that infants can be allowed to starve.

I think the question was settled quite some time ago.

Ok, my first real thought on this issue was that government should only government by consent, along the lines of Spooner.

Spooner FTW

I think the question was settled quite some time ago.

yeah, it was; in favor of self-determination as a fundamental right which forms the only basis of legitimacy for governance. which means yes for secession.

Yesterday was the anniversary of the election of Jefferson Davis to the Presidency of the Confederate States of America. He was to serve a six-year term, but was forced to resign early when the CSA was reunited with the Union.

Assume for a moment that the Confederacy was not a racist oligarchy that was looking to medieval England for a model of government--I'm exaggerating, but it was pretty bad. The South tried to secede. The colonies did the same from Great Britain, and few Americans believe that was disloyal. On the other hand, the British Isle does not border the US, and the grievances of the South were different from those of the colonists. Do you think the South have the right to try to leave the US?

of course they have the right to leave the US

Yesterday was the anniversary of the election of Jefferson Davis to the Presidency of the Confederate States of America. He was to serve a six-year term, but was forced to resign early when the CSA was reunited with the Union.

Assume for a moment that the Confederacy was not a racist oligarchy that was looking to medieval England for a model of government--I'm exaggerating, but it was pretty bad. The South tried to secede. The colonies did the same from Great Britain, and few Americans believe that was disloyal. On the other hand, the British Isle does not border the US, and the grievances of the South were different from those of the colonists. Do you think the South have the right to try to leave the US?

No. First of all, you can't really ignore the context in which they tried to secede. Fact is that the Confederacy was a racist oligarchy. Whether secession would have even been an issue if the political landscape had been different in a way so as to make it something other than a racist oligarchy is pure conjecture.

Secondly, the colonies had no seats in parliament. However, the South not only had representation in congress, but due to the dreadful "3/5ths compromise," they had more than their fair share (since obviously it's bullshit to have representation for a portion of your population whom you are disenfranchising and not even treating as citizens). This is why I find the comparison to the American Revolution flawed.

To me, the CSA had the right, without any doubt, to secede peacefully from the USA.

What they did not have, was any right to seize USA-owned federal lands, fire on and imprison federal troops, and imprison federal officers without hearing or trial.

The CSA declared itself free, then attacked the US. It was a war of Southern Aggression.

To me, the CSA had the right, without any doubt, to secede peacefully from the USA.

What they did not have, was any right to seize USA-owned federal lands, fire on and imprison federal troops, and imprison federal officers without hearing or trial.

The CSA declared itself free, then attacked the US. It was a war of Southern Aggression.

Indeed. Whether it was their legal right to secede or not, that whole argument really was moot as soon as they opened fire on federal troops (who were on federal property). One could say that their secession was perfectly legal, but in attacking a US fort, they started a war against the US and were then conquered. Countries tend not to like being shot at.

No. First of all, you can't really ignore the context in which they tried to secede. Fact is that the Confederacy was a racist oligarchy. Whether secession would have even been an issue if the political landscape had been different in a way so as to make it something other than a racist oligarchy is pure conjecture.

Secondly, the colonies had no seats in parliament. However, the South not only had representation in congress, but due to the dreadful "3/5ths compromise," they had more than their fair share (since obviously it's bullshit to have representation for a portion of your population whom you are disenfranchising and not even treating as citizens). This is why I find the comparison to the American Revolution flawed.

He addressed the fact that it was an oppressive, racist, oligarchy. If all of this were not true (including the 3/5ths) would representation in congress really prevent a group from seceding?

He addressed the fact that it was an oppressive, racist, oligarchy. If all of this were not true (including the 3/5ths) would representation in congress really prevent a group from seceding?

How would secession even be an issue without the political power in the south being a racist oligarchy? If you change the whole dynamic of power, it's really hard to say anything about it because so much would be different.

Additionally, they had representation, so it can't be a "no taxation without representation thing."

Without the racist oligarchy, there's not much reason to secede in the first place.

And whether or not they have the right to do so, they forfeited their right to remain independent when they fired upon USA troops (afterwards imprisoning them) and seized the property of the USA. That's war. If you start a war with somebody, and they end up winning, tough shit if you lose your independence. Should have thought of that before firing.

Personally I'll just stick with the Tenth Amendment: Any power not specifically delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the States and People thereof respectively. Since the States did the ratifying of the Constitution, it is the States that delegated authority to the Federal government. Since an inferior cannot delegate to a superior this clearly presents that the Federal government is -at best- co-equal with the State governments and superior -only- within the three powers that it was delegated by the Constitution. Therefore, since secession is not a power delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution, or forbidden the States by the Constitution, it is a power reserved to the States and the People.

All of that said, I agree with at least one of the qualifiers that I've seen stated: secession should always be a matter of a referendum of the people. The State legislatures should most definitely not have the authority to do as the Southern States did in 1861 and secede of their own accord without a mandate from its people.

And whether or not they have the right to do so, they forfeited their right to remain independent when they fired upon USA troops (afterwards imprisoning them) and seized the property of the USA. That's war. If you start a war with somebody, and they end up winning, tough shit if you lose your independence. Should have thought of that before firing.


Except that when they seceded that property was within their boundaries and no longer Federal, US, property. Unless you're proposing that it was US in perpetuity which rather negates the whole point of secession since the entire State could have been viewed as having been "US property."

In addition the South tried diplomatic means of allowing the Federal garrisons to be removed. They were even told that such -would- be removed only to find out that instead the ships coming to do so were not ships to remove the garrisons but to, in fact, -resupply- the garrisons. This is akin to one of the countries where we have military bases (US property) telling us to get out, we agree, and then send extra troops and supplies. Now are you going to tell me that such would not be construed as an "act of war" by any other nation? Why then is South Carolina's choice to open fire, rather than allow that re-enforcement of a fort that -controlled- Charleston Harbor considered the "first shot" when the US government under Lincoln committed such an "act of war?"

Except that when they seceded that property was within their boundaries and no longer Federal, US, property. Unless you're proposing that it was US in perpetuity which rather negates the whole point of secession since the entire State could have been viewed as having been "US property."

In addition the South tried diplomatic means of allowing the Federal garrisons to be removed. They were even told that such -would- be removed only to find out that instead the ships coming to do so were not ships to remove the garrisons but to, in fact, -resupply- the garrisons. This is akin to one of the countries where we have military bases (US property) telling us to get out, we agree, and then send extra troops and supplies. Now are you going to tell me that such would not be construed as an "act of war" by any other nation? Why then is South Carolina's choice to open fire, rather than allow that re-enforcement of a fort that -controlled- Charleston Harbor considered the "first shot" when the US government under Lincoln committed such an "act of war?"

Because no actual agreement on the timetable or sequence of removal of Federal Troops had been agreed upon. You can't move thousands of troops from one area to another overnight and without preparation; it requires time and resources. For instance, if Germany asked the US to evacuate it's bases there, we probably couldn't do it in less than six weeks - and that would be a crash programme. With the transport capabilities of the 1860's, it would have taken much longer to evacuate and shut down (or turn over) every fort in the Confederacy in good order.

During that time, those troops would need resupply and reequipment as usual. Use of materiel doesn't stop for political problems.

Further, the people of Charleston played their own part in the drama. After the vote to secede, Federal troops were attacked on the street, and southern militias started to openly gather handweapons, men and cannon. The commander of the Federal troops in Charleston, fearing an attack, decided to shift his command from a small, and indefensible, facility on the mainland to Fort Sumter in the harbour, both to avoid inciting the angry populace and to protect his command in case of an attack. Instead, the militias were enraged by the Federals "threat" to Charleston's commerce (no actual threat was ever made), and attacked before the resupply fleet could land.

As far as the land went, all federal lands are either purchased or leased from the states in which they reside. The Federal Government has as many rights as any other landowner or renter. If Mississippi or Louisiana wants to kick out a Federal Garrison, they have to purchase that land back, or legally end the rental agreement.

Wow, I just did that in my 118 seminar. Of course, I had to argue from the point of view of southern secessionists (with a superb southern accent, of course). Deja vu or what?

Because no actual agreement on the timetable or sequence of removal of Federal Troops had been agreed upon. You can't move thousands of troops from one area to another overnight and without preparation; it requires time and resources. For instance, if Germany asked the US to evacuate it's bases there, we probably couldn't do it in less than six weeks - and that would be a crash programme. With the transport capabilities of the 1860's, it would have taken much longer to evacuate and shut down (or turn over) every fort in the Confederacy in good order.

During that time, those troops would need resupply and reequipment as usual. Use of materiel doesn't stop for political problems.

Further, the people of Charleston played their own part in the drama. After the vote to secede, Federal troops were attacked on the street, and southern militias started to openly gather handweapons, men and cannon. The commander of the Federal troops in Charleston, fearing an attack, decided to shift his command from a small, and indefensible, facility on the mainland to Fort Sumter in the harbour, both to avoid inciting the angry populace and to protect his command in case of an attack. Instead, the militias were enraged by the Federals "threat" to Charleston's commerce (no actual threat was ever made), and attacked before the resupply fleet could land.

As far as the land went, all federal lands are either purchased or leased from the states in which they reside. The Federal Government has as many rights as any other landowner or renter. If Mississippi or Louisiana wants to kick out a Federal Garrison, they have to purchase that land back, or legally end the rental agreement.

Sir, I applaud you. I think that's about the best and most rational counter argument I've heard and I thank you. I did not know that about Federal lands for one thing. I had thought that such lands were either ceded to the Federal government or simply taken, so I also thank you for correcting my misconception there.

I still contend that the citizens of South Carolina were not entirely in the wrong, but I won't pretend that they were blameless either. As with any situation there are always at least three sides to any story: my side, your side, and the truth somewhere between.

Yesterday was the anniversary of the election of Jefferson Davis to the Presidency of the Confederate States of America. He was to serve a six-year term, but was forced to resign early when the CSA was reunited with the Union.

Assume for a moment that the Confederacy was not a racist oligarchy that was looking to medieval England for a model of government--I'm exaggerating, but it was pretty bad. The South tried to secede. The colonies did the same from Great Britain, and few Americans believe that was disloyal. On the other hand, the British Isle does not border the US, and the grievances of the South were different from those of the colonists. Do you think the South have the right to try to leave the US?

On the contrary, I think they should be forced to leave.


http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/565/jesuslandjt7.png (http://imageshack.us)

The colonies did the same from Great Britain, and few Americans believe that was disloyal.

Not so. Under a third really supported seceding from Great Britain; about a third thought it was wrong, and the rest didn't care.

Also, I think that the Southerners had just as much right as the American Revolutionaries did to secede, regardless of the faults in either. (The American Revolution wasn't perfect either; the revolutionaries oppressed loyalists, the government was incredibly corrupt even immediately afterwards, and the precedents set by certain interest groups have ensured a steadily growing central state since the Articles of Confederation.)

Sir, I applaud you. I think that's about the best and most rational counter argument I've heard and I thank you. I did not know that about Federal lands for one thing. I had thought that such lands were either ceded to the Federal government or simply taken, so I also thank you for correcting my misconception there.

I still contend that the citizens of South Carolina were not entirely in the wrong, but I won't pretend that they were blameless either. As with any situation there are always at least three sides to any story: my side, your side, and the truth somewhere between.

Not a problem. I'm always glad to provide information.

As to South Carolina, I actually agree that the citizenry were not the whole of the problem. Their reaction to the occupation (it had previously been mothballed, I believe) of Fort Sumter was probably predictable. On the other hand, I would not like to have been the Union officer faced with the garrison commander's choices.

On the contrary, I think they should be forced to leave.


http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/565/jesuslandjt7.png (http://imageshack.us)

Hey, I don't want to live in Jesusland!

How would secession even be an issue without the political power in the south being a racist oligarchy? If you change the whole dynamic of power, it's really hard to say anything about it because so much would be different.

Additionally, they had representation, so it can't be a "no taxation without representation thing."

Without the racist oligarchy, there's not much reason to secede in the first place.

And whether or not they have the right to do so, they forfeited their right to remain independent when they fired upon USA troops (afterwards imprisoning them) and seized the property of the USA. That's war. If you start a war with somebody, and they end up winning, tough shit if you lose your independence. Should have thought of that before firing.

The CSA had seized several forts within their own borders without military response prior to Sumter, which also lay within the borders of the CSA. The CSA sent a delegation offering to purchase these "federal properties" and sign a peace treaty with the USA. Lincoln refused to remove troops and armaments that were positioned within Confederate territories, forcing the Confederates to act to establish their own sovereignty. You wish to say that the Confederates seceded and then lost their sovereign status when they fired upon the federal positions, but that is completely untrue as the federal government denied to recognize Confederate sovereignty.

Now that the history is done with, would you please recognize that secession is not a concept relegated merely to 19th century American history, and that the circumstances surrounding the Civil War have no bearing on the merit of secession itself?

Did the Confederate States have a right to seceed?
NO!
How can democracy survive if everytime a minority disagrees with the course of the government, they simply break away?

How can democracy survive if everytime a minority disagrees with the course of the government, they simply break away?

how can it survive if it governs people who do not consent?

Not so. Under a third really supported seceding from Great Britain; about a third thought it was wrong, and the rest didn't care.

I meant Americans today. Americans today tend to believe that the South was not justified in trying to secede, while the colonies were justified in breaking off from Britain.

On the contrary, I think they should be forced to leave.


http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/565/jesuslandjt7.png (http://imageshack.us)
I've seen this picture several times, and have always wondered: why is Alberta in Jesusland, but Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and the West Coast aren't?

I've seen this picture several times, and have always wondered: why is Alberta in Jesusland, but Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and the West Coast aren't?

Because Minnesota, Michiga, Wisconsin, Illinois and the West Coast tend to swing left in elections. Thus, they belong to Soviet Canuckistan.

The CSA had seized several forts within their own borders without military response prior to Sumter, which also lay within the borders of the CSA. The CSA sent a delegation offering to purchase these "federal properties" and sign a peace treaty with the USA. Lincoln refused to remove troops and armaments that were positioned within Confederate territories, forcing the Confederates to act to establish their own sovereignty. You wish to say that the Confederates seceded and then lost their sovereign status when they fired upon the federal positions, but that is completely untrue as the federal government denied to recognize Confederate sovereignty.

Now that the history is done with, would you please recognize that secession is not a concept relegated merely to 19th century American history, and that the circumstances surrounding the Civil War have no bearing on the merit of secession itself?

Federal property does not belong to the state and the USA's government was not obligated to sell it if they didn't want to. They also are not obligated to recognize another nation if they don't want to.

Federal property does not belong to the state and the USA's government was not obligated to sell it if they didn't want to. They also are not obligated to recognize another nation if they don't want to.

You are begging the question.

You are begging the question.

I'm not doing any begging.

I'm not doing any begging.

By assuming that the federal government still retains claims within the territory of seceding states and that the federal government need not recognize the seceding states as sovereign you are assuming that the federal government has no obligation to allow a state to secede and establish its own independence.

That is begging the question.

EDIT: In other words, I just posit that the federal government has no claims on secessionist state land and that government has an obligation to acknowledge their secession, and we are the same place as before.

To me, the CSA had the right, without any doubt, to secede peacefully from the USA.

What they did not have, was any right to seize USA-owned federal lands, fire on and imprison federal troops, and imprison federal officers without hearing or trial.

The CSA declared itself free, then attacked the US. It was a war of Southern Aggression.

Which would not have occurred were said fort not being used to impose Union taxes; nor were repeated attempts made to bolster Union forces there.

I meant Americans today. Americans today tend to believe that the South was not justified in trying to secede, while the colonies were justified in breaking off from Britain.

OK. But perception does not govern reality, so whether people think it is just or not does not mean it is just or not.

By assuming that the federal government still retains claims within the territory of seceding states and that the federal government need not recognize the seceding states as sovereign you are assuming that the federal government has no obligation to allow a state to secede and establish its own independence.

That is begging the question.

EDIT: In other words, I just posit that the federal government has no claims on secessionist state land and that government has an obligation to acknowledge their secession, and we are the same place as before.

It isn't state land. It is the property of the United States government.

It isn't state land. It is the property of the United States government.

How so?

EDIT: Actually, never mind. If you don't want this to go anywhere, so be it.

Both acts were "illegal", having no provisions in UK law or the US constitution to justify the insurrections.

"Legal" = what force is able to establish or maintain.

I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.
-Thoreau

I've seen this picture several times, and have always wondered: why is Alberta in Jesusland, but Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and the West Coast aren't?

Because Minnesota, Michiga, Wisconsin, Illinois and the West Coast tend to swing left in elections. Thus, they belong to Soviet Canuckistan.

And Alberta is conservative to almost American levels. The map was changed to include Alberta in Jesusland after the last Canadian election.

How so?

EDIT: Actually, never mind. If you don't want this to go anywhere, so be it.

If I for some strange reason own a ten by ten square of land that's in the middle of your land and there's a shack on it, you can't just go and tear down my shack or take the stuff that's in my shack out of it to put your own stuff in. Because it's not your shack, it's mine. If you do so, you have just violated my property.

I say yes. People do have a right. It's all about consent of the governed. The U.S. justified its break from England in all sorts of ways, but I really don't think any of those grievances were that severe. At worst, colonists were treated poorly perhaps because King George was incompetent, but much can change in time.

Tha fact is, the revolutionaries just WANTED to. And maybe at the end of the day, that's reason enough.

American historical documents are filled with writings about tyrants, power weilded over unwilling masses, people having a right to ruling themselves, etc. Where was that talk in the North in 1861? The Civil War wasn't about slavery. It wasn't a noble crusade to free the enslaved in the south. In fact, Lincoln had no intention of exerting pressure on the sout to abolish slavery, especially if leaving them alone would preserve the Union.

You could argue that the government being broken away from is being disenfranchised... that it invested money and resources into the secessionist territory for defense, infrastructure, etc. But that's a non-issue. Something like that can be settled diplomatically.

I think if a population wants to set up its own government is is within its rights to do so. Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence is meaningless.

Assume for a moment that the Confederacy was not a racist oligarchy that was looking to medieval England for a model of government--I'm exaggerating, but it was pretty bad. The South tried to secede. The colonies did the same from Great Britain, and few Americans believe that was disloyal. On the other hand, the British Isle does not border the US, and the grievances of the South were different from those of the colonists. Do you think the South have the right to try to leave the US?
I actually do think that it was reasonable for the States to believe that they could leave the Union if they chose.

Remember that before the Civil War, it was grammatically correct to say, "The United States are..."

It was only after the Civil War that it became "The United States is..."

I've seen this picture several times, and have always wondered: why is Alberta in Jesusland, but Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and the West Coast aren't?

Because we love hockey and think rodeos are weird.

I think the question was settled quite some time ago.
Not really, all that was settled was that the U.S.A. had the military might to force the C.S.A. to rejoin the Union.

Personally I'll just stick with the Tenth Amendment: Any power not specifically delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the States and People thereof respectively. Since the States did the ratifying of the Constitution, it is the States that delegated authority to the Federal government. Since an inferior cannot delegate to a superior this clearly presents that the Federal government is -at best- co-equal with the State governments and superior -only- within the three powers that it was delegated by the Constitution. Therefore, since secession is not a power delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution, or forbidden the States by the Constitution, it is a power reserved to the States and the People.

All of that said, I agree with at least one of the qualifiers that I've seen stated: secession should always be a matter of a referendum of the people. The State legislatures should most definitely not have the authority to do as the Southern States did in 1861 and secede of their own accord without a mandate from its people.

Yeah, what he said

Not really, all that was settled was that the U.S.A. had the military might to force the C.S.A. to rejoin the Union.

indeed - i'm really unclear on what the people who make that claim think they are arguing, and i wish one of them would stick around long enough to clear it up for me

indeed - i'm really unclear on what the people who make that claim think they are arguing, and i wish one of them would stick around long enough to clear it up for me
It's obvious what they're arguing - that might makes right

I actually do think that it was reasonable for the States to believe that they could leave the Union if they chose.

Remember that before the Civil War, it was grammatically correct to say, "The United States are..."

It was only after the Civil War that it became "The United States is..."

I never knew that; where did you hear it? It makes sense, in Spanish and probably other languages, too, the United States is treated as a plural.

I never knew that; where did you hear it? It makes sense, in Spanish and probably other languages, too, the United States is treated as a plural.

It's historically accurate. If you look at the political speeches of the times, prior to the 1860s The United States was always a plural.

Some claim Lincoln as being the originator of the change; some of his speeches, particularly later ones, switch from "these United States" to "THE United States". But there are instances of it being used pre-war by other speakers.

Personally, I think it came about due to the use of the terms "The Union" and "The Confederacy". People became used to thinking of their nation in the singular, and transferred that concept to the US. The fact that it also made more sense in the new paradigm of nation sepremacy over the states simply reinforced the trend.

Then it occurred to me that two separate democracies are closer to unanimity than one so secession is an inherent good.I see no reason to believe that this is necessarily so, because it is impossible to predict in advance what will be the salient cleavages of opinion in a given society.

It is entirely possible to split up a nearly unanimous democracy only to discover that the separated halves tear each other apart in partisan disagreements.

Your conclusion must be based on some hidden assumption--perhaps the notion that people's interests are necessarily conscious and consistent?

But of course your argument must proceed from interest rather than right in the first place: the question, "What is best for all?" may be answered differently by any given person depending on who is included among "all." While I may think that one policy directs the common interest when thinking about the United States taken collectively, I may have a very different opinion about what is best when considering New Jersey alone.

Likewise, it is possible that the people of the United States generally agree with me about the common good of the whole... though the citizens of New Jersey are profoundly divided over what is best for New Jersey (even if they, too, are in agreement about what is best for the nation).

I think if your latter limitation is valid, then so is a draft, and other seeming wrongs.I'm a Hobbesian on the issue of a draft. A draft to support national security narrowly conceived is perfectly legitimate: in other words, it is appropriate to conscript citizens into the defense of their country against invasion or occupation.

It is in no sense legitimate to conscript unwilling volunteers for a war that is not immediately, determinately related to defense. No matter how important it seems to invade, unless the government can credibly claim that the nation's very survival depends upon such activities it cannot claim a legitimate power of conscription.

yeah, it was; in favor of self-determination as a fundamental right which forms the only basis of legitimacy for governance. which means yes for secession.While I'm sympathetic to secessionist arguments, I'm also quite sure that the argument does not follow as neatly or as simply as you perceive.

The fundamental problems in theories of democracy--"people's rule"--have always and will continue to come down to these two questions: which
"people"? and what does it mean to "rule"?

In the most extreme case, when secessionists refuse to explain which groupings constitute a self-determining Sovereign, it appears that any association whatsoever can choose to secede. Don't like the local property taxes? Declare that your homeowners association "secedes" to form its own country. Don't like state income taxes? Well, have your whole town "secede"? It's your right, after all.

So, how about you? Do you define or describe the groupings possessing an inherent right to secession? Does there need to be some geographical coherence or separation, or is secession just as legitimate in the middle of non-seceding territories? Does size matter? Do numbers? Does the capacity to provide particular functions of government matter?

Does the cause for secession matter? For example, is there a difference between seceding because of policy disagreements ("we don't like how the majority votes") as opposed to structural complaints ("we are not given a fair vote")?

Or is it just a free-for-all?

In the most extreme case, when secessionists refuse to explain which groupings constitute a self-determining Sovereign, it appears that any association whatsoever can choose to secede. Don't like the local property taxes? Declare that your homeowners association "secedes" to form its own country. Don't like state income taxes? Well, have your whole town "secede"? It's your right, after all.

yes, but how long do you think people would honestly keep that up? its not like doing so will endear them to the neighbors, who, they will quickly discover, they are rather significantly reliant on. there is only so far down things will get broken up before it will be just way more hassle than it will be worth.

So, how about you? Do you define or describe the groupings possessing an inherent right to secession? Does there need to be some geographical coherence or separation, or is secession just as legitimate in the middle of non-seceding territories? Does size matter? Do numbers? Does the capacity to provide particular functions of government matter?

in the abstract, its all good. in practice, well, not every split will work, and so i expect that things will come to a rough equilibrium driven by the fluid compromise of "i loathe those fuckers over there" and "i hate needing a passport to get to the store"

Does the cause for secession matter? For example, is there a difference between seceding because of policy disagreements ("we don't like how the majority votes") as opposed to structural complaints ("we are not given a fair vote")?

it matters in so far as there are some reasons that are unacceptable - no seceding because you want to enslave people, for example. but not liking how the majority votes so much that you get to the point that you would rather not be associated at all anymore with them seems like an eminently reasonable justification for disassociation.

Hey, I don't want to live in Jesusland!

We're accepting refugees in the United States of Canada. :)

I'm a Hobbesian on the issue of a draft. A draft to support national security narrowly conceived is perfectly legitimate: in other words, it is appropriate to conscript citizens into the defense of their country against invasion or occupation.

Why? Is it that the state is aware of the values of the citizens under it better than the citizens themselves?

They failed to defend themselves and lost the war. Therefore they didn't have the right to secede. You have whatever rights you are able to defend. If you can't defend them then obviously they are not rights.

They failed to defend themselves and lost the war. Therefore they didn't have the right to secede. You have whatever rights you are able to defend. If you can't defend them then obviously they are not rights.

If you have to be able to defend them, how can you define them as rights?

If I beat you up and take your wallet, did you not have right to it?

They failed to defend themselves and lost the war. Therefore they didn't have the right to secede. You have whatever rights you are able to defend. If you can't defend them then obviously they are not rights.

You say might makes right, but your engaging in argumentation is a performative contradiction to the former principle; if might really made right, then you would force others to obey you and vice versa. However, by the fact that you do not engage in naked force but instead attempt to convince others of the correctness of your cause you pre-suppose that they have a moral power over their person, and that you may only attempt to convince them to do as you suggest. And, of course, part of having moral power over one's person is that one has the right to disassociate from others, which is an emanation of secession.

Did the Confederate States have a right to seceed?
NO!
How can democracy survive if everytime a minority disagrees with the course of the government, they simply break away?

Democracies are government with the consent of the governed. If you feel your government is not in your best interest, you have every right to object. This follows down to the most basic levels - if the benefits of being in a political unit with your neighbors outweighs the costs, you maintain the government by the consent of the governed. If your neighbors vote to divide all your property amongst themselves because they just dont like you - should that be considered just and you should agree to it without objection because it is the will of the majority?