Secession & The American Civil War

To begin, I want to note that America is not, and has never been, a stranger to secession, but let's not kid ourselves here - we had no legally enshrined right to secede from England. We were labeled as traitors - but, who were the traitors in the war? Was it the United States, for wanting freedom from tyranny, or the British Empire, for violating the key principles of freedom? Americans had no desire at first to secede; like good British citizens, we aimed to peacefully address our differences. All we wanted was to be treated like those on the British Isles - given proper representation in Parliament, fairer taxes, and not having soldiers boarded in houses. We waited decades upon decades upon decades for those issues to be resolved, and it wasn't until England gave us complete tyranny that we even considered seceding. Even still, we tried peaceful alternatives such as the Olive Branch Petition, but finally - when it became clear the Empire had no respect for our rights - we said 'enough' and created the Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration of Independence, we gave clear reasoning for our treason, including a scathing indictment of the treatment of the colonies by the Crown. The King had, according to Thomas Jefferson:[1]*Refused to assent to (approve) laws*Forbidden governors to pass laws without his approval*Refused to pass laws for 'large groups of people' unless they give up the right to representatives*Called legislatures into poor locations distant from Public Record offices*Dissolved legislatures entirely and refused to allow new elections*Refused to allow states to naturalize foreigners and prevented them from encouraging migration*Refused to assent to creating courts*Made judges follow his will by controlling their salary and term*Created unneeded offices and officers to harass people*Created a standing army in peace time and taken control of it from the people*Subjected Americans to foreign laws*Quartered troops among the people*Protecting these troops from criminal prosecution*Cut off trade and imposed taxes*Deprived the citizens of trial by jury*Transported Americans overseas to face trial in England, away from their peers*Abolished English law in Quebec*Taken away charters, abolished laws, and altered government*Suspending legislatures and directly controlling state laws*Waged war against the states*Hired mercenaries to attack Americans*Forcibly taken Americans into naval servitude*Sought to make Indians attack AmericansAs you can see, that's a pretty long list, and when read, it justifies the secession entirely. No loyalty is owed to a tyrannical government, and by not only enacting these laws but refusing to allow petition of them, the Empire sealed its fate. By this, the founders clearly viewed secession as a problem to be solved by the people, not the government. In fact, the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor to the Constitution, stated that "the Union shall be perpetual". [2] While the Constitution, silent on the issue, clearly replaced the ineffective Articles, it is imprudent to ignore early precedent on the issue. Furher, court rulings have ruled it is illegal,[3] and rebellions such as the Whiskey Rebellion were halted. Forbes writer Michael Peck argues that secession "The Founding Fathers revolted because they did not want to be ruled by a king and country on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The American Civil War was fought over states’ rights; even if that was the right to enslave other human beings, it could be at least be said that the issue behind secession was significant". [4] In contrast to the utter tyranny leveled by Great Britain, the issues between the states were minor. Secession is clearly an individual, not governmental, right, and only to be used in the direst of circumstances, which would be tyranny. Despite arguments the South was being subjected to such, the key difference in the Civil War is that all national laws were passed by the representatives of the people. In other words, all laws were passed with consent of the governed. The South may not have liked some laws, but they were clearly in the minority on those issues. Despite these facts, the South made very clear prior to an election that they intended to secede if Abraham Lincoln won the 1960 election, which he did. [5] In other words, they attempted to blackmail the people of the United States to progress a political agenda. Does that sound like a group of people who are oppressed? Most of the South Carolina secession document makes it very clear the reason they seceded is that they felt slavery was threatened. [6] In other words, they seceded because they disliked the fact that slavery was dying and more and more people were saying that representative government should include all people of all colors. The right to secede clearly does not apply to the South, because South Carolina was the one with tyranny. In fact, the Confederate Constitution was essentially a "word-for-word duplicate" of the American Constitution,[7] meaning the South had no issue with northern laws with the exception of slavery. There was no true issue with tyrannical government (except the slave system in the South), meaning the South failed to clear the necessary burden of 'utter tyranny' to justify secession. Finally, the South had no justification in attacking the North's military instillation at Fort Sumter. The North had no obligation to leave, because it was their land. By attacking the North first, the South did one of two things:A) If secession was legal, attacked a sovereign power, which is an act of war by any definitionB) If secession was illegal, waged rebellion against government, which is treasonEither way, there is no justification for it. The South could have had a case if the North attacked first from the fort, but the North did not. To conclude: secession is clearly a radical solution to any problem. As Jefferson so eloquently put, "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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security". [1] In other words, secession is a right of the people, not government. It is only justifiable when there is long-standing tyranny, and all possible efforts have been made to end the tyranny peacefully. The South failed to justify secession properly - their opposition was rooted not in tyranny, but opposition to the will of the people who passed laws and elected a President the South didn't like. The Sotuh attacked a sovereign nation, which is an act of war. Thus, secession was illegal and the Civil War was justified. References:1. Declaration of Independence2. Article XII, The Articles of Confederation3. Texas v. White4. . http://www.forbes.com...5. . http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org...6. . http://avalon.law.yale.edu...7. Constitution of the Confederate States