# Slavery aside: did the Confederate States have a point about secession? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [August 16, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693 "2012-08-16T18:07:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/61 "2012-08-18T13:58:45Z")
> [@An\_Arky](#): > > I say let them secede (not just southern states, any state stupid enough to do it); fence them off, embargo them, disallow access to them thru the US, point a bunch of missiles at them and fire them if they even look like they’re going to give us one iota of shit. Door/Ass, etc. And who \*\*\*wouldn’t \*\*\*want to be part of such a gracious nation? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/62 "2012-08-18T17:27:57Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > The people of Maryland created the state of Maryland, for example, and _ **then** _ the states created the United States. You’re wrong. The people of Maryland didn’t create the state of Maryland. It was created by a royal charter in 1632. The first settlers didn’t arrive until 1634. Maryland existed before there were any Marylanders. You’re also wrong about the states creating the United States. As I’ve already pointed out, the people not the states created the United States. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/63 "2012-08-18T17:38:02Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > And who \*\*\*wouldn’t \*\*\*want to be part of such a gracious nation? Graciousness goes out the window when a state secedes. They are, in essence, declaring themselves enemies of the state, unless the secession is by mutual agreement, which is most assuredly not going to be the case. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/64 "2012-08-18T18:17:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’re wrong. The people of Maryland didn’t create the state of Maryland. It was created by a royal charter in 1632. The first settlers didn’t arrive until 1634. Maryland existed before there were any Marylanders. I’m pretty sure that was the _colony_ (technically, the Province) of Maryland, not the _State_ of Maryland. > [@](#): > > You’re also wrong about the states creating the United States. As I’ve already pointed out, the people not the states created the United States. In what sense? Merely because of the recitation in the Preamble? _The states_ chose and sent the representatives to the Constitutional Convention, not “the people.” The new Constitution was adopted by _the states,_ not by a national plebiscite. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/65 "2012-08-18T22:21:45Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > I’m pretty sure that was the _colony_ (technically, the Province) of Maryland, not the _State_ of Maryland. Maryland existed before 1776. The American Revolution just changed the governments of the states, it didn’t create them. > [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > In what sense? Merely because of the recitation in the Preamble? _The states_ chose and sent the representatives to the Constitutional Convention, not “the people.” The new Constitution was adopted by _the states,_ not by a national plebiscite. The Constitution was not adopted by the states. It has nothing to do with the preamble. You could either read the Constitution to confirm this or you could read my previous post in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/66 "2012-08-19T00:39:20Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > Under what legal theory? > > Must a citizen of Ohio get permission to emigrate to another state? To another nation? (Forgive me, I am on vacation and so am busy in the Real World.) To return your question to you, “By what legal theory would the people of Ohio alone own Ohio?” After all, I do not need permission of Ohio to go there. I am a part-owner. But to continue my train of thought, Ohio was made and made rich by the collective action of all Americans. All Americans invested in it, and so all American own it. If Ohio wants to go it alone, they have to offer to buy me and everyone else out. If I refuse their offer, they cannot leave. I own a small part of it. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/67 "2012-08-19T03:59:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > . . . If a state does not have the sovereignty to withdraw from one article of the Constitution, how does it have the sovereignty to withdraw from the entire Constitution? (Including the article you just said it couldn’t withdraw from.) Even though I don’t believe states have the right to withdraw, either in part or in whole, I don’t think this is really a strong argument. Withdrawing entirely, totally severing all bonds, makes a little more sense than “picking and choosing,” disregarding one set of Federal mandates but accepting others. At some point, it might make sense to “pick up your ball and bat and go home,” but, until you do drop out of the game wholly, you pretty much have to play the game everyone else is. Another difference is that one can secede from the association entirely by a major, catastrophic, and quite probably armed break, but such a break is rarely only partial. The state in question is unlikely to mobilize its militia, seize Federal territory, oust Federal Attorneys, and so on, solely to avoid implementing the Affordable Care Act, while still accepting Federal Highway funds and following Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/68 "2012-08-19T05:22:34Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Even though I don’t believe states have the right to withdraw, either in part or in whole, I don’t think this is really a strong argument. Withdrawing entirely, totally severing all bonds, makes a little more sense than “picking and choosing,” disregarding one set of Federal mandates but accepting others. > > At some point, it might make sense to “pick up your ball and bat and go home,” but, until you do drop out of the game wholly, you pretty much have to play the game everyone else is. > > Another difference is that one can secede from the association entirely by a major, catastrophic, and quite probably armed break, but such a break is rarely only partial. The state in question is unlikely to mobilize its militia, seize Federal territory, oust Federal Attorneys, and so on, solely to avoid implementing the Affordable Care Act, while still accepting Federal Highway funds and following Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations. There’s some merit in what you’re saying. But the point I was trying to make by my post was that American citizens have constitutional rights as American citizens. A lot of people (with a strong overlap of the “states rights” crowd) would be horrified by the idea of their state government taking away their Second Amendment rights. That’s _their_ right, which they hold as an individual - it doesn’t belong to the state. But when your state secedes, that’s exactly what it’s doing. It’s taking away your Second Amendment rights - along with your First Amendment rights, your Fourth Amendments, your Eighth Amendment rights, and all the other Constitutional rights you hold. You hold those rights as an individual citizen. They’re guaranteed to you by the United States government. Your state government didn’t give you those rights and they can’t take them away from you. That’s why the United States has not only the legal right but the legal obligation to oppose any secession by a state government. By trying to secede the state government is taking away the citizenship rights of all the American citizens living in the state and the United States has a duty to protect those citizens and their rights. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/69 "2012-08-19T05:34:20Z")
Using what as a basis? > [@](#): > > That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness That’s a pretty wide scope there, because using that argument we’ve been given grounds to overthrow the U.S. government several times over. It’s also hard to ignore that the South’s threat to secede came after the election. I’d say that the argument largely comes from the fact that the Union wasn’t very old at the time and the South would’ve felt that the North wasn’t ‘their’ government. Lincoln had no support from them. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/70 "2012-08-19T05:55:34Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > That’s a pretty wide scope there, because using that argument we’ve been given grounds to overthrow the U.S. government several times over. It’s also hard to ignore that the South’s threat to secede came after the election. > > I’d say that the argument largely comes from the fact that the Union wasn’t very old at the time and the South would’ve felt that the North wasn’t ‘their’ government. Lincoln had no support from them. I’m assuming this was directed at my post. First, the Declaration of Independence doesn’t have any ongoing legal authority. Its only legal statement was that it was declaring the thirteen colonies were declaring independence from the Britain. As for the principles invoked, they said a government derives its validity from the consent of the governed. Which the United States government had in 1860. There had just been an election and Lincoln had won it. The principle is consent of the governed but not unanimous consent. You get to vote - but sometimes your side loses the vote. Nor was the United States government destructive to any ends. It wasn’t even threatening the existence of slavery. And the southern states implicitly acknowledged this - as soon as they seceded they immediately got together and recreated their own version of the government they had just seceded from. They even claimed that their were the true heirs of that government. They certainly weren’t disavowing that Form of Government and trying to create a new one. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/71 "2012-08-19T05:57:48Z")
No, I was aiming at the OP. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, **Little Nemo**. I consider the Declaration of Independence to be a philosophical groundwork for revolution, but not a legal one. I also mentioned the election of 1860. I feel that as a young country, I can forgive South Carolina for jumping ship after the election. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/72 "2012-08-19T06:22:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > . . . That’s why the United States has not only the legal right but the legal obligation to oppose any secession by a state government. By trying to secede the state government is taking away the citizenship rights of all the American citizens living in the state and the United States has a duty to protect those citizens and their rights. Ah! Yes! This is a particular line of reasoning I’d never heard before; thank you! And I quite agree with it. A secession could allow the new government to pass whatever laws it wants, with no constitutional protections at all, or only minimal ones, and very likely _different_ ones, anyway. So, the new state might decide to sell some of its citizens (us!) into slavery. The existing Federal Government exists, in part at least, to protect its citizens from being sold into slavery, and can’t do that if regions can secede and implement new laws without restriction. (One of the ugly bits of the American Revolution was the horrible treatment of former loyalists, who had property seized, or were imprisoned, and in some cases were killed outright. One of the very legitimate duties of the Crown was to prevent that sort of thing from happening.) ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/73 "2012-08-19T06:26:32Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Ah! Yes! This is a particular line of reasoning I’d never heard before; thank you! > > And I quite agree with it. A secession could allow the new government to pass whatever laws it wants, with no constitutional protections at all, or only minimal ones, and very likely _different_ ones, anyway. So, the new state might decide to sell some of its citizens (us!) into slavery. The existing Federal Government exists, in part at least, to protect its citizens from being sold into slavery, and can’t do that if regions can secede and implement new laws without restriction. > > (One of the ugly bits of the American Revolution was the horrible treatment of former loyalists, who had property seized, or were imprisoned, and in some cases were killed outright. One of the very legitimate duties of the Crown was to prevent that sort of thing from happening.) But other nations manage to split up without this issue. Czechoslovakia, USSR, Germany after WWII, Yemen, Ethiopia, etc. Not that those are sterling examples to follow, for the most part, but it seems that by your logic no nation could ever split. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/74 "2012-08-19T19:16:34Z")
I don’t think the North opposed the South’s succession because they were concerned about protecting their citizens. That’s the after-story. The North and South were both fighting over power in the Union. As more states joined, the more they jockeyed for power (slave state or free state, e.g., Bleeding Kansas). They had competing economic interests, plain and simple, and federalism wasn’t really the cornerstone of the Union yet. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2012, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/75 "2012-08-19T21:17:54Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > But other nations manage to split up without this issue. Czechoslovakia, USSR, Germany after WWII, Yemen, Ethiopia, etc. Not that those are sterling examples to follow, for the most part, but it seems that by your logic no nation could ever split. Well…don’t hold me to it too strongly, as I only first ever even heard the idea yesterday… Obviously, the reasoning doesn’t work across the boundaries of war. Germany, for instance, was hardly in a position to reject partition in 1945. The logic that **Little Nemo** taught me would suggest that Germany would have been wrong to accept separation into two countries – and, indeed, history shows that the citizens of East Germany suffered horribly from loss of civil rights! In a way, that example argues for me, not against me! I would go a little out on a limb and say that a legitimate representative government could accept partition, so long as certain assurances and guarantees were made, and so long as partition reflects the true will of a significant majority, and so long as the procedure follows an established legal process. The world could very much wish that the partition of India had been handled less violently; the same for the partition of Pakistan. But the principle of “self rule” is one we respect very highly. Life gets really complex when two principles we esteem are seen to operate at cross purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/76 "2012-08-20T01:00:10Z")
But what if the succeeding party things the governing party is opposing their rights? Who’s protecting whom? Are you going to argue against the American, French, Dominican, etc., revolutions? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/77 "2012-08-20T01:43:50Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > But what if the succeeding party things the governing party is opposing their rights? Who’s protecting whom? Are you going to argue against the American, French, Dominican, etc., revolutions? This is why I mentioned self-determination or self-rule as an ideal. The American Revolution would have been a bit better if the new government had acted to protect the rights of those who had been loyalists. The U.S.’ “original sin” is the branding, burning, tarring, and murder of many of those loyalists. But, yes, when a government is, itself, suppressing rights and not defending them… The U.S. Declaration of Independence makes some good points. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/78 "2012-08-20T14:51:19Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > A secession could allow the new government to pass whatever laws it wants, with no constitutional protections at all, or only minimal ones, and very likely _different_ ones, anyway. So, the new state might decide to sell some of its citizens (us!) into slavery. Perhaps you’re being sarcastic. Surely you realize that the state’s own constitutions enumerated the rights they considered fundamental, and that at the time of the Civil War the guarantees of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by the state legislatures. Secession did not wipe out the “statehood” of the Carolinas, nor require them to adopt new constitutions or to reformulate themselves, because the states were the basic entities that had formed or joined the United States, and now they were simply withdrawing and forming a different federation. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/79 "2012-08-20T16:39:26Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > No, but I would heartily endorse allowing them to leave now. :: cough :: You know, there are actual patriotic non-homophobic non-racist people down here. My hatred of Etruscans is not racism. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2012, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693/80 "2012-08-20T21:15:41Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > Perhaps you’re being sarcastic. No, sir. I do not play games. Attribute my errors to ignorance, never to malice. > [@](#): > > Surely you realize that the state’s own constitutions enumerated the rights they considered fundamental, and that at the time of the Civil War the guarantees of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by the state legislatures. Agreed: the moral scheme that **Little Nemo** taught me is, as **Farmer Jane** said, the after-story. It’s a moral viewpoint we can hold today, not one that I would shove off onto the people of 1860. It is a moral viewpoint that I find convincing. > [@](#): > > Secession did not wipe out the “statehood” of the Carolinas, nor require them to adopt new constitutions or to reformulate themselves, because the states were the basic entities that had formed or joined the United States, and now they were simply withdrawing and forming a different federation. Tricky… In theory, yes, South Carolina was sovereign, but in practice, it was actually less sovereign (since the term is not functionally an absolute, but a measure of independence.) Much of this was due to the pressure of war, and so not an indictment of the Confederate system. But much of it was due to the “one true way” moral shibboleth of the Confederacy’s founding: the states themselves were now forbidden to contemplate ending the institution of slavery. If South Carolina had truly been sovereign, the Confederacy could never have instituted military conscription. The day they did that, they ceased to be a loose federation, and became a strong, centralized one. Again, it was the need of war that made them do it…but they did it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slavery-aside-did-the-confederate-states-have-a-point-about-secession/631693.md?page=5)