The legality of secession is an argument still hotly debated in the United States today. In light of the recent presidential election, the issue has resurfaced with vigor; states on the west coast, for example, have proposed a secession from the Union under the name “Cascadia.” The same argument was made in the years leading up to the the civil war of the late 1800s, during which Southern states relinquished their membership of the Union. I would argue, however, that the southerners had no constitutional right to secede and that the view of secession as a legal right is a flawed one. Despite having “seceded” from Britain years prior, the states during the civil war had no legal right to secede from the Union as they had agreed to follow the
…show more content…
As the states had not entered legally into a Union with Great Britain, they were legally able to nullify their relationship and break from the British Empire. In order words, as one party (England) forced another party (the colonies) to enter the deal, the latter has the right to break the agreement. Furthermore, the colonies had been oppressed in the form of taxation without representation, and thus the two parties could be seen as that of the
“oppressed” and the “oppressors.” In this situation, as Karl Marx would argue, the oppressed always have the right and the duty to liberate themselves from the oppressors.
In the context of the Southern United States before the civil war, however, the terms on which the legality of secession should be judge are different. As all the states had legally entered into the Union through the signing of the
Constitution, no one state had the right to break the agreement and secede. In a business venture, both parties have to agree to the terms and conditions of the joint undertaking before formally entering a union, and both parties …show more content…
Even though the secession of Southern states from the Union was legally void, it would not have been so if they had been explicitly oppressed by the North. Had the southerners been discriminated against by the federal government following the election of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps through higher taxation or restricted rights compared to northern citizens, then the South would have been legally allowed to leave the Union. In this situation, the Northern states and the federal government would have broken the agreement by failing or refusing to fulfill their part of the deal. By signing the Constitution, the states agreed to accept the democratically elect president if he followed the principles outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If the president had failed to do this - for example if the president undermines the principle of equality under the law- then the southern states would have the right to leave the Union due to breach of contract on behalf of the federal government.
Though the Southern states during the road to civil war did not have the right to secede from the Union, that is not
As the states had not entered legally into a Union with Great Britain, they were legally able to nullify their relationship and break from the British Empire. In order words, as one party (England) forced another party (the colonies) to enter the deal, the latter has the right to break the agreement. Furthermore, the colonies had been oppressed in the form of taxation without representation, and thus the two parties could be seen as that of the
“oppressed” and the “oppressors.” In this situation, as Karl Marx would argue, the oppressed always have the right and the duty to liberate themselves from the oppressors.
In the context of the Southern United States before the civil war, however, the terms on which the legality of secession should be judge are different. As all the states had legally entered into the Union through the signing of the
Constitution, no one state had the right to break the agreement and secede. In a business venture, both parties have to agree to the terms and conditions of the joint undertaking before formally entering a union, and both parties …show more content…
Even though the secession of Southern states from the Union was legally void, it would not have been so if they had been explicitly oppressed by the North. Had the southerners been discriminated against by the federal government following the election of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps through higher taxation or restricted rights compared to northern citizens, then the South would have been legally allowed to leave the Union. In this situation, the Northern states and the federal government would have broken the agreement by failing or refusing to fulfill their part of the deal. By signing the Constitution, the states agreed to accept the democratically elect president if he followed the principles outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If the president had failed to do this - for example if the president undermines the principle of equality under the law- then the southern states would have the right to leave the Union due to breach of contract on behalf of the federal government.
Though the Southern states during the road to civil war did not have the right to secede from the Union, that is not