Over the last several years there’s been quite a revival in the use of the concept of secession as one way to address various problems. While some people claim (with a great deal of support) that the claim for a constitutional right of secession was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1869, and others say the issue was resolved through force of arms (an argument that to me asserts that might makes right), still others endorse the concept. Moreover, the concept is not restricted to white southerners, although it does seem to attract them in disproportionate numbers, including those who would like to create a separate southern nation.
Now, I don’t particularly care for these sorts of discussions, especially when one discovers the sentiments behind many of these movements. Still, I do not see any harm in simple discussion, and, after all, it is political speech. If one put one’s mind to it, one could even devise a way through constitutional amendment to allow for secession (note that the advocates of secession seem reluctant to pursue that route). Instead, too many advocates of secession tend to brush off the dust from antebellum justifications for secession as if nothing’s changed, or they simply utter the word as a catch phrase devoid of intellectual comprehension (I’m looking at you, Governor Rick Perry of Texas).
I do have one suggestion for advocates of this position, including Michael, a blogger (who, as you can see here, has a rather extensive number of You Tube videos for your perusal) and Pat Hines, who identifies himself with this website. Both of these individuals have graced readers of this blog with their input recently. But here’s something to consider:
Set aside a defense of the Confederacy as part of your message. Whatever you do, don’t try to mix the political message you offer today with the historical perspectives you seek to promote. It doesn’t work well. For example, how do you expect to gain the support of black voters (not an insignificant voting bloc) if you continue to press the case that the war had little to do with slavery? Give Michael points for agreeing that it was deplorable. And how do you expect to gain the support of northerners who have migrated south if you castigate them as some sort of plague or label them colonizers? How exactly do you think you will secure their removal or submission?
Now, I understand that both of you are proud of Confederate heritage. However, linking your present-day calls for secession and independence (as well as a new southern nation) probably won’t gain much traction so long as you wrap the Confederate Battle Flag around your efforts. Moreover, Pat Hines agrees with me more than you might think:
This may disturb some Southern patriots who feel compelled to mount a defence of every symbol under attack, but the focus of SNC is not The War and The Flag. We have to re-orient ourselves to the future, not the past. Forget slavery and racism. We need never apologise for what we were, or what we are. When our detractors throw slavery and racism at us, we needn’t fall into the trap of responding. Instead, we must turn the argument back on them. It’s today’s wretched Regime that deserve condemnation for all the reasons stated above, not the last bastion of Christian culture and ordered liberty — the South.
So let it be understood, by ourselves as well as by our inevitable critics: we are not trying to reconstruct the Confederacy of 1861. We don’t apologise for it, and indeed we are justly proud of the courage, sacrifice, and dedication to principle our Confederate forefathers demonstrated. But the South is more than just a huge battlefield park. It existed before 1861 and after 1865. The cause of the South is not expressed solely in the tragic events of The War Between the States. We Southerners of today have legitimate interests, grievances, and solutions that have little to do with The War, and we need a forum relevant to today to express them.
Best of luck, gentlemen. I give your words publicity so that they may be part of the marketplace of ideas. Indeed, I’ve just given you some advice on the consequences of your use of Confederate heritage and your understanding of history. Look to the future and make your case there.
Excellently stated. I have often associated the idea of ‘secession’, more with “Libertarian’ ones, than with the civil war heritage or the Battle flag. . This perspective has enabled me to re-look at the secession movement differently. I think the southern states missed a golden opportunity, when they resigned from the Congress. Instead they might have stayed on and promoted the legal separation in and possibly by the Congress. Looking forward, instead of gazing backward.
If Michael is serious about attracting an audience, he might wish to reconsider his YouTube video, Greatest Southron Heroes: John Wilkes Booth. I have it on good authority that it’s not doing well in focus groups.
More seriously, Professor Simpson, I wonder if you’re not making a category error by assuming that folks like Michael, the League of the South, Palmetto Patriots, the Abbeville Institute and so on, really are seeking broader public support for their cause. I’m not at all sure that’s actually the case, given that (if anything) they seem to have become more strident and demanding of ideological purity in recent years. This is not the hallmark of a political movement that seeks to build a “big tent” coalition of people around a single, clear idea. Rather, they consistently come across as a far-right, fringe-y, xenophobic element that is trying to re-fight the “late unpleasantness” as much or more than they are addressing present-day issues. I see no evidence that this image concerns them, or that they see it as a detriment to the acceptance of their ideas into the larger body politic. In other words, I think their rhetoric — books, websites, blogs, YouTube videos — are all intended as self-affirmation for like-minded compatriots. They’re preachin’ to the choir.
This may well be true, but then one no longer needs to take their discussion of secession seriously as a way to achieve change, because they will never get the chance to try it. This, of course, is one reason why the secessionists of 1860-61 cited anything they could get their hands on–including the tariff–to make their case. Show me the role those issues played in the talk of secession in 1860 and in 1856. Republicans in 1860 did the same thing, to the extent that some party leaders complained that they were underplaying the issue of slavery’s immorality.
Nor does it seem their cries will ring well with Jews and other non-Christian citizens of the states that attempted secession in 1860-1865:
“It’s today’s wretched Regime that deserve condemnation for all the reasons stated above, not the last bastion of Christian culture and ordered liberty — the South.”
It’s always interesting to see the contradictions between the notion of a multicultural Confederacy and these cries for purity. It’s also interesting to see the call for a return to an agarian South, when the historical fact is that it was an agribusiness South founded upon plantation slavery. How do our present-day southern romantics plan to hire a workforce? Or is “hiring” not part of their plan, but a setting aside of the Thirteenth Amendment? After all, that was part of the good old days they wish to have once more.
Pingback: Thoughts on Soveriegnty and Secession | Yesterday…and Today
I don’t believe that saying the issue of secession was resolved through force of arms implies that “might makes right”. It is simply an acknowledgement that some things are extra-legal. Things involving sovereign states are extralegal. Now I don’t think the states of the Union are sovereign states (though of course they have a sphere of sovereignty like all powers,) but I’m just saying. I think the right to revolution is a natural (moral) right. I don’t think secession was that either since they bolted after the election over one issue. Still how do you resolve disputes over sovereignty between two states? That is what you had in the CW. Also, wars of independence can be clearer cases to talk about. You have to win them to make the right effective. Anyway, when US Grant said the matter of slavery was settled by “the highest tribunal” he wasn’t saying might makes right.
But if one argues that secession’s a constitutional right, then military defeat does not resolve that issue. It simply thwarted the attempt to exercise that right. We talk about a right of revolution, but not all revolutions succeed.
Brooks, yes I agree on that. I guess I’m fairly dismissive of the idea that secession is constitutional. I don’t even get the arguments for that. How is it the requirements for statehood are so clear and the requirements to leave are . . . well, not there? It seems to me the motive is usually for Southerner’s to claim “the war was illegal!”
Well, as we can see, we don’t have certain people commenting today who were rather avid posters the past few days on these questions. This reinforces Andy Hall’s interpretation of this movement as not a call to action but a means of offering political criticism while refusing to participate in the process.
The suppression of Shay’s rebellion by force of arms established the legal precedent that the Govt can do so to preserve itself.
One major difference between modern and original secessionists id todays ARE motivated by States Rights and they love to cite the 10th Amendment and they don’t get the difference between a semi-colon ; and a colon: and how getting it confused completely changes how Article I section 8 reads.
“The suppression of Shay’s rebellion by force of arms established the legal precedent that the Govt can do so to preserve itself. ”
There’s no need for a precendent to establish the authority; it’s right there in Article I, Section 8, under the powers enumerated to Congress:
That’s what’s amusing to me about the Southrons today who insist that secession was a constitutional right, even though it’s mentioned nowehere in the document, while at the same time arguing that Lincoln’s “invasion” of the South was unconstitutional, when the authority for it is right there, in plain English.
“…not the last bastion of Christian culture and ordered liberty…”
Once again, missing the boat by a wide margin….because, you know, Roman Catholics are considered Christian by some people, and speaking as a Catholic living in Virginia and who has lived in 3 different parts of Georgia, I have noticed the dearth of Catholic churches in the South.
Now, if I go to my native Southie, I see LOTS of Christian churches, Catholic, Congregational, Episcopal, Presbytarian and even a few AME and Baptist.
But I forgot…in the TRUE SOUTH it is only a certain kind of Christianity which is honored and recognized.
And I wonder how how those Catholic Latinos in the American Southwest feel about the exclusion? Probably pretty good.
Sheesh.
I recall being interviewed by a southern institution of higher education that was considering me for a job opening. They apparently were aware that I was from New York, and so the interviewer, making an assumption I often encounter, asked if I was Jewish. Curious as to why he asked, I responded by asking him why that was important. His response was that it would be okay if I were Jewish, because there were Jews and a temple in the town, but that if I happened to be Roman Catholic, that would be a much bigger problem.
Must not have been a university in Louisiana.
I agree. I’m a libertarian and would very much lIke to see power shift back to the states. I refuse to align myself with Confederate Secession because of the slavery issue. I think it’s time for a new credo, a new flag, a new day.
ok,i’m not that smart.but it seems to me that any secession would require the use of force,a civil war.correct?