One problem people often have when looking at the past is to paint a person, event, or civilization as good or bad. Of course, given the complexity of human history it is difficult to describe some event or civilization as totally good or totally bad. We can all recognize that the Founding Fathers were not totally wrong, nor were they totally right.
Having grown up in the South, I have viewed (and participated) in the arguments between people who claim the South was right, and those who claim it was wrong. I think the best position to hold is that the South was wrong about some things (e.g. slavery) and the North was wrong about some things (e.g. invading the South when they exercised their right to secession). History is too complex to try to generalize across a whole country. However, I suspect that most people who are on one side or the other of the North-South debate are actually debating over more than historical accuracy.
Having lived in the South my whole life, I have known people who make the Confederacy the centerpiece of their political viewpoints. However, the past few years I have questioned not only the practicality of doing that, but even whether one should desire to hold the Confederacy in such high esteem.
One point that people go on about ad nauseum is that the South had a right to secession. The North was wrong to invade the South when they seceded. I agree that the South had the right to secede. Yet, I do not think we should hold the South up as the great protector of the right of secession.
Case in point: In my home state, Alabama, Winston County was opposed to the secession of the states from the Union. They reasoned that, if a state could secede from the Union, then a county could secede from a state. So, they seceded. (Let me point out that I do not support the belief of Winston County that states could not secede from the Union, but I do support the right of Winston County to secede from the state of Alabama.) The Confederates came into the county, arrested every single man over 18 years old along with every married man, took them to jails in other counties, and gave them five days to decide to fight for the Confederacy. If they chose not to fight, they would be shot in the back.
Isn’t it hypocritical to claim that people have the right of secession, but then use force against those who secede?
Many Confederate sympathizers are going to reply: “You’re missing the point! States have the right to secede, not counties. States had the right to secede because they joined together to form the country, and they retained the right to split apart and dissolve the country.”
It’s a good point, but I don’t think this will work. Go back and read the Declaration of Independence. Our country was founded upon the idea that a people could dissolve a government when it became necessary. The Confederate sympathizer has two choices: the right to secession was the product of the form of government that was instituted, or that the right to secession was part of the natural rights of the people. The latter was the view of the Founding Fathers; the former view would force one to view the Founding Fathers as being wrong when they revolted. Of course, Confederate sympathizers don’t want to be placed at odds with the Founding Fathers, since many of them claim that the Confederacy was fighting for the original vision for our country.
Anyway, I think it is correct to hold that the South had a right to secede (though not a right to enslave others) and the North was wrong in invading them. It is equally correct to hold that Winston County had a right of secession, and the South was wrong to use force against them.
Tags: Law and Justice, Politics
December 29, 2007 at 12:11 am |
A lot of hypocrisy happened on both sides. Like how the some of the North said that the south was racist but when a black guy walked through there neighborhood they attacked him.
January 5, 2008 at 10:59 am |
Thank you so much for posting the bit on winston county! VERY interesting
January 11, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
Thanks for the comments.
Samuel: Yeah, a lot of hypocrisy happened on both sides. Sadly, those who toe the mainline view about the South being the spawn of Satan and the North being God’s army sent to crush Satan’s offspring miss the hypocrisy on the North’s side; those who view the North as offspring of Satan and the South as God’s army tend to miss the hypocrisy on the South’s side (after all, how can slave-owners fight for individual liberty against tyranny and not be hypocrites?). Thanks for the comment.
Jeramy: You’re welcome! I’m glad when people find my blog interesting. I get tired of being the only one who thinks what I say is interesting.
February 29, 2008 at 8:49 pm |
I think that the post oversimplifies the problem, while criticizing those who oversimplify the problem. How sovereignty comes to be is a great question, but in lieu of that question, it ought to be noted that a preexistent sovereign has already filled those requirements, whatever they are. It does not follow that because a State, admitted by its equals as sovereign, may secede that therefore a part of it may also secede, and a part of that secede, and so forth. Secession is the act of withdrawing from what one has acceded to, accession being its converse. Otherwise, it’s revolution, which requires an oppression on the part of the government of its citizens.
There is a certain level of material and moral self-sufficiency that all Western legal tradition, starting right back at Aristotle, recognize as requisite for the attributes of sovereignty. It is much to be doubted that “Winston County, Alabama” had those attributes. Instead, what it sounds like is that citizens of a southern State opposed its efforts in the war, and perhaps they even considered aiding the enemy. That is treason, and even in the U.S. Constitution, treason is defined as being an action against the States (the Constitution in Article III says, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”) Treason is an action against sovereign power, showing that the States were recognized as sovereign even after the ratification of the Constitution.
The States are “perfect societies.” That is, they form a political community or State in the political sense of the word. Sovereignty is not divisible into county units. Counties really do draw their existence from the existence of the State in a way analogous to the way in which Lincoln (falsely) claimed that the States drew their existence from the Union. Had he been right about that, no doubt the States would have had no legal right to secede whatsoever. It is the same with the example of a county.
So I don’t think that your criticism of the confederacy really holds water in this point. I frankly don’t think they should have seceded when they did, but I see why they may have thought they needed to. Either way, when you are part of a State, you are bound to either support the aims of that State or leave it (and no, the U.S. wasn’t strictly speaking one State; it was a confederacy of such States or societies, and so the case is not equivalent.)
February 29, 2008 at 9:44 pm |
James: Thanks for the reply. I always appreciate people who read my blog and make comments.
That being said, your basic contention is that the states were sovereign states who freely entered into an agreement to form the Union and were therefore free to leave. I addressed that briefly in my post.
Let me first ask you a question: how did the states acquire sovereignty? I am not so much interested in the historical events that brought about the origin of the states as I am in the philosophical principles that say that the states were just organizations.
Do individuals have rights qua individuals or do they have rights qua members of a sovereign state? I adhere to the former. I think the individual has the right to self-ownership and not state can justly violate this right. The dissenters in Winston County had the right to dissolve themselves from the state of AL; the state was unjust to prevent that.
So, despite your assertion that I oversimplify things, I did not do so. We might disagree upon what counts as a just state (I think it has to have 100% voluntary consent of its citizens), that does not mean that either of us are overly simple in our accounts of the secession.
February 29, 2008 at 9:49 pm |
Let me just mention one more thing. You say,
“The States are “perfect societies.” That is, they form a political community or State in the political sense of the word. Sovereignty is not divisible into county units. Counties really do draw their existence from the existence of the State in a way analogous to the way in which Lincoln (falsely) claimed that the States drew their existence from the Union. Had he been right about that, no doubt the States would have had no legal right to secede whatsoever. It is the same with the example of a county.”
You hint at the idea that a group’s right of a group to dissolve their bonds with political body depends upon the history of the formation of that political body. I disagree with this. The people of Alabama did not get the right of self-rule from the historical circumstances of its formation, but from the rights that they have as individuals and their (theoretically) free association in that body.
August 29, 2008 at 6:55 pm |
If you will look at some counties that did secede your question will be answered. Thirteen counties of Virginia seceded to form West Virginia. When president lincoln found out they wanted to do so , he was all for it. But when he consulted his advisors, they informed him that it was unconstitutional without a request from the Virginia governor and legislators. lincoln said “Do it anyway”. So, they appointed a fraudulent governor and legislature and they made the request.
This was just one example of mr. lincolns attrocities during the war. He has the deaths of over 600,000 Americans on his head (hardly a candidate for Greatest American President, in my book)…….but I digress…
So legally, if the Alabama county wanted to secede, they needed aproval from the state of Alabama.
October 10, 2008 at 5:23 pm |
Sir, I just wanted to say thank you for this web page. It’s hard to find such in-depth information anywhere else. The civil war has always interested me, and I like to learn as much about it as I can. What has always amazed me is that there were both noble and -well, not so noble- causes for each side, and it must have been such a difficult decision for each and every man.
I also agree completely with you in that it isn’t our place to decide generally which side was right, and which was wrong. But, I also have a question: do you think that a partial reason for the confederate states’ secession is that they were scared because of things like the plantation vs. industrialism issues? Do you think it’s a possibility that they were worried that their way of life was just going to dissappear altogether? Over some of my research, I’ve gotten that impression, but I’ve never heard it clearly explained before.
October 14, 2008 at 8:53 pm |
Sara: Thank you for your comments. I appreciate it, and it inspired me to resume my blogging. Sometimes I neglect it. So thank you.
Also, there’s no reason to call me “Sir”. I am 23 years old, so I neither deserve nor desire to be called “Sir”.
Regarding your question: I don’t think I’ll be able to clearly explain an answer. I don’t know what I think about the plantation vs. industrialism issue. So, instead of giving a horribly uninformed answer, I’ll simply say this: I would be suspicious of any claims that the average soldier was mainly fighting for this reason.
I’m sorry I wasn’t able to give a better answer.
December 11, 2008 at 11:28 am |
You are missing the fact that slavery was legal at the time. I firmly believe that it would have ended before the turn of the century on it’s own weight. Were that it had never happened in the first place but………
I would also point out that many States dictated in writing that they maintained the right to secede when they voted in favor of the Constitution. The New England States seriously considered secession in the years before the Civil War. I do not know what their reasoning was.
June 18, 2009 at 6:21 am |
“The North cause slavery in American to start with a greedy money making scheme.”
Northern people went on ships traded material goods for the black slaves from tribal kings in African.
The Northern people wanted the African slaves to work in there factories it took to long for teaching and training them.
So the North came up with another bright idea because of all the money they had spend on purchasing of the African slaves.THE NORTH DID THE SELLING FIRST!
THE PRICE WAS TO EXPENSIVE TO TAKE THEM BACK TO AFRICA!
NORTHERN PEOPLE SOLD AFRICAN SLAVES TO THE SOUTHERN PEOPLE TO WORK IN THERE FIELDS.
WE HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED FOR THIS ACTION EVER SINCE!
THE NORTH WAS FIGHT THE CIVIL WAR TO FREE SLAVES.
OR SO THEY CLAIMED, THAT IS TRULY GENUINELY QUESTIONABLE TO ME.
SO WHO’S FAULT WAS IT REALLY THAT WE HAD SLAVERY IN AMERICAN? NORTH OR THE SOUTH.
WE SOUTHERN PEOPLE WERE FIGHTING THE CIVIL WAR FOR STATES RIGHTS! THE RIGHT TO GOVERN OUR ON STATE.
Abraham Lincoln was no hero he was totally a tomfool for killed his on people. A Bad judgment or ignorance on his part as a so called president ever did!
Abraham Lincoln declared war on the south!
THE CIVIL WAR WAS FOUGHT OVER MONEY FROM THE NORTH!THEY DID NOT WANT TO PAY A FAIR SHARE OF MONEY ON OUR FIELD GOODS!
NORTH WANT TO SET THERE ON MARKET PRICE!
THE SOUTH WAS NOT GOING TO STAND FOR IT!
November 23, 2009 at 9:54 pm |
Amazing Article , I thought it was remarkable
I look ahead to more innovative postings like this one. Does This Blog have a subscription I can subscribe to for anymore information from you?
November 24, 2009 at 10:25 pm |
tuttUnsanny:
I am now posting on a new blog:
http://thesmallrivers.blogspot.com
I don’t have much time to post stuff anymore. My current plan is to start posting 1-2 times a week. I hope I can keep to it!
I liked many things about WordPress, but I like the way I can customize the templates with blogger. I also like being able to embed videos in my posts.
Thanks for the kind comments.