Rick Perry says that Texas can secede from the union. Did the Civil War not establish that this is not the case?

Would slavery have eventually burned out as some suggest without a Civil War? I am reminded of the Sally Hemmings-Thomas Jefferson tale. Many historians said that claims that Jefferson had fathered a child by Hemmings were outlandish. When DNA proved those historians to be wrong, these same historians turned on a dime and wrote about the wonderful love story of Hemmings and Jefferson. There was a subconscious need to save face. Southern gentry had to be protected.

Jefferson's image had to be kept clean. Historians "white-washed" the story to make it a romance, rather than a rape. Some Southerners want to believe that the South would have evolved without aggression. It is another attempt at cleansing the record.

Even when slavery ended it was followed by the era of Jim Crow. Jim Crow was just the tip of a bigger iceberg. There were still work conditions that amounted to slavery. An enlightening text is "Slavery By Another Name" by Douglas A Blackmon. It details how businesses in the South kept African-American workers in servitude from the Civil War until World War II. Techniques used included threats of violence against those not willing to toil for low wages and long hours. Suppression of Blacks did not cheerfully end with the Civil War. Nor would it have slowly burned out. The idea that the South would have lifted their oppression of Blacks without a War is ludicrous.

Here is an excerpt from a review of "Slavery By Another Name":

Wall Street Journal bureau chief Blackmon gives a groundbreaking and disturbing account of a sordid chapter in American history—the lease (essentially the sale) of convicts to commercial interests between the end of the 19th century and well into the 20th. Usually, the criminal offense was loosely defined vagrancy or even changing employers without permission. The initial sentence was brutal enough; the actual penalty, reserved almost exclusively for black men, was a form of slavery in one of hundreds of forced labor camps operated by state and county governments, large corporations, small time entrepreneurs and provincial farmers. Into this history, Blackmon weaves the story of Green Cottenham, who was charged with riding a freight train without a ticket, in 1908 and was sentenced to three months of hard labor for Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad, a subsidiary of U.S. Steel. Cottenham's sentence was extended an additional three months and six days because he was unable to pay fines then leveraged on criminals. Blackmon's book reveals in devastating detail the legal and commercial forces that created this neoslavery along with deeply moving and totally appalling personal testimonies of survivors. Every incident in this book is true, he writes; one wishes it were not so.

People still enjoy playing dress up as Confederates in mock battles. It is offtimes hard to find enough people to play the role of Union soldiers. They need to be reminded of the good old days.

Even today with the joy of graduation upon us, there are still segregated high school proms in the South.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24prom-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine

The intellectual discussion about secession is fine, but don't for a second believe that slavery would have just burned out in the United States. Slavery and oppression persisted even after the Civil War because the South felt that it was an economic necessity.

The residual "hatred" of the South is a Frank Luntz style "word that works". There is no hatredof the South, there is just a fact based remembrance of past behavior and concern about current attitudes (See prom reference above).

I was away over the weekend but did enjoy Jade's exchanges.

.........But I am somewhat surprised to see a lack of insight about the romanticization of history with regards to the North's role in slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and so on.

Is the North romanticizing The Civil War? It is the South that continually throws the Civil war in our faces. Confederate flags are placed on state grounds. When Barry Goldwater talked to the South about States Rights, everyone knew the code words that he was using. Some Southerners are trying to romanticize events. The insight is intact.

African-Americans realize that they had to fight for every right that was attained in the Unite States. The fights were both North and South. Historians have pointed out that companies and colleges in the North benefited from slave labor. The White House was built on slave labor.

But, the South seceded because the region wanted the right to continue to enslave other human beings. I'm just tired of other more genteel rationales being proffered. The Holocaust happened, as did US Southern slavery. Trying to offset blame by saying, the North did it too fall flat as an argument. The institution of slavery was a way of life in the South.

Okay, let's get this hashed out once and for all (just kidding).

Lincoln's legal arguments are in my opinion the best and most practical for preservation of the union as a matter of law.

The constitution is a contract, all parties who are signatories to the contract are legally bound to uphold their duties and obligations as spelled out in the contract. Lincoln argued that while one party "can breach a contract the consent of all parties is required to rescind a contract." In Lincoln's argument the United States was not a voluntary association of states but a mutually agreed upon union and even if it was a voluntary association, contractual law still applies.

The constitution has no expressly written means of unilateral withdrawal from the contract. Almost immediately after signing the constitution states began threatening to secede from the union beginning in 1790 by Georgia and South Carolina, again in 1804 with the threatened secession of New York and New England and in 1815 when the New England states threatened secession. This threat was used regularly over the next 87 years when regions of states or states were thwarted or perceived to be harmed by the federal government. Each petition was voted down by the states' legislatures with the exception of Georgia and South Carolina. (So when Sherman claimed that "this is where the ugly head of secession first raised itself and this is where it would end, there was more to the history than the first shots in 1861.) Therefore there was no common or mutually agreed upon mechanism for voiding the contract but there was precedent that the states themselves provided in refusing the legal rights of the petitions as instruments of secession.

Lincoln made the legal argument that the union was older than the constitution that it dated back to the articles of association in 1774 and to the articles of confederation which established a "perpetual union". (He also made the argument that the states were not sovereign at the time of the signing of the constitution that they were a confederation and thus forever associated with each other. (This imo, is the weakest of his arguments.)

Article IV gives congress the power to admit new states, but there is no mechanism by which a state can secede and any "implied right" can be interpreted only in context to the rights of all parties. In that context, any state which wishes to secede must use the same mechanism by which it entered - ratification by all the parties. What those means of ratification might be would also have to be made by mutual agreement.

Now this was the lawful case that Lincoln made against secession - we are a nation of laws by mutual agreement. If the south was to pursue secession, they had only the right to pursue that claim through the mechanism provided by the constitution by which a bill is introduced to congress, that bill is agreed to by a majority of representatives and then ratified by the President of the United States.

Finally, the question of the right of states to secede was settled by the Supreme Court in its decision of 1868 Texas V. White. Even though a republic before joining the union, Texas had no right to secede "the Constitution in all its provisions looks to an indestructible union, composed of indestructible states."

Silly talk, this unbreakable permanent Union and the sanctity of contracts. Lemme see. How well are OTHER contracts treated these days? Like, ummmm, those treaties we signed. And the wars we started. And errrr, autoworker contracts. But yessirree Bob, contracts that reference keeping states in the Union, and bonuses flowing to financiers, and oil from ferrin countries - them contracts are SOLID. Which is to say - we actually, factually, break contracts all the time. Whether we should or not.

Ok. Now to the "should." A Union which CANNOT be broken. Ok, lemme see if I can break it. Can I imagine circumstances in which the Northern Liberal states would INSIST on leaving? Jeez. Toughie. Ok. Imagine the population of the South and the Plains rises and forms what is obviously a permanent majority over the North. And they USE it. To vote Republican. Nasty-ass Republican. To elect Cheney-Rush in '12. And those happy lil GOP munsters go to TOWN on Americans. They chop the living heart out of the Constitution, and slam it through using the Congress. And then, they implement, let's say, camps. But for Americans. Where they torture them and shit. And then, they win AGAIN in '16. 'Cause they're just picking off liberals and progressives and mouthy blacks and gays and such.

Now. Imagine you then had the possibility of secession. Any liberals out there interested?

Whoops! Sorry kids! That thar Union is UNBREAKABLE. Your g-g-g-g-Granpappies signed your ass into this deal, and there's no way out.

In short, it's complete cobblers to imagine that states can't and won't someday want to secede, and even that they won't someday have damn good reason to do so. Life is long, and history somewhat longer again. So, yeah, secession might involve "breaking the law." And, technically, make you a "traitor." Big whoop. There are bigger things, higher purposes in the world, than hanging on the letter of the law.

Besides, I thought 1776 had something to say about that? I really dislike this talk about how "once you're in, you can't get out." I'm with the original rebs. They had the Spirit. "Fuck this shit, let's make up our own country." Well done.

The Civil War was fought mainly for reasons of state, in my view, not grand principles, although the factor of slavery lent the war more support among progressives and abolitionists in the North, just as the Iraq War, also fought mainly for reasons of state, attracted support in our time from various liberal groups.

There is no way the United States could have let the South go. The CSA would have presented the US with an indefensible, insanely long southern border with a hostile, violence prone slave state. The US would have lost all their warm weather ports, and strategic control of the entire Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, including the future ability to exploit Latin America. The US would also have lost control of shipping on the Mississippi, the most important waterway in the country. CSA control of New Orleans might ultimately have lead to Southern hegemony over the entire Mississippi valley, and cut off US expansion westward, and left the CSA free to exploit the mineral resources of the west. In any case, the South’s strategic dominance of Latin America would eventually have brought Californian into the CSA empire, leading to loss of unfettered US access to the Pacific as well as the southern Atlantic. England would have allied with the CSA following their victory. The US capital would have to have been moved. The US would also have lost much of it best agricultural land. The North would still have had its industrial and educational advantages, but its drastically weakened strategic geographical position might well have set it on a permanent downward trajectory.

All in all, I think the case for the right of secession is just as strong in the antebellum American tradition as the case against secession. After all, the whole American Revolution was defended on the basis of the supposed right of self determination, and of one people to sever the bands that have connected them with another, from time to time in the course of human events. Yet, I shed no tears for the South, since their decision to secede was quite undemocratic given the disenfranchisement of such a massive proportion of their adult population. And the southern “honor culture” with its infatuations with violence and war would have proved a perpetual nuisance to the peace and stability of the US, as would Southern traditions of ignorance, hatred of science, anti-modernity, and religious backwardness. Lincoln was right to perceive the mortal danger the CSA would have posed to the US.

It would have been interesting to see if the centers of culture and enlightenment in the South, of which there certainly were a few, could have prevailed against the deep, obstreperous backwardness of the broader southern homeland, or if the nostalgic agrarian Southern economy could have made a transition to the modern world, combining their love of fighting with technological capability. I suspect so. But I also suspect the ultimate result might have been something like the Soviet Union, a agricultural economy pursuing forced industrialization from the center, contrary to the historic instincts and habits of the bulk of their population.

But it is unlikely that slavery could have maintained its intellectual and religious support for long, even in the South with its nutty, Old Testament-based pseudo-Christianity. Slavery might well have torn the CSA apart before long, in another civil war. How long could the CSA have remained as an outpost of ancient barbarism?

But as for claims that the Civil War “proved” or “established” any principles about secession etc., I am surprised to find any TPM Café readers advancing such notions. Since when do liberals fall in with the primitive belief that principles are proven through force of arms? When one side beats another side in a war, it doesn’t prove that their legal or moral principles are correct. It just proves that they have a better military.

Yes, there is a small part of me that is jealous; nostalgic for the old Joe Wood "The Regionalist Perspective" blogs, for a more conservative and vitriolic me.

Such hits as Does Science Hate God, or even Why God Wants George W. Bush to be President. Wow. What nights of typing those were.

I miss those comment #'s roll in.
(oh cry. Oh sob.)

I was never lonely, though my ideology was.

Well, I think we established that a State would never be allowed to secede today, whatever strong arguments it put forward that the Government is committing Torture in its name - these cases have been in and out of the Courts and it has been decided - We Do Not Torture. We do not Surveil Against Citizens with Impunity(unless forgiven retroactively). So when we create our Perpetual Detainments for prisoners who like the South might be violent and have the potential for danger, even should they have been convicted for no crime, but Restrained for our own good, this will fit in well with our image of Perpetual Union - till Death do us Part.

Would the States approve the secession of one member? Certainly the Conservative States of America would rail against a feeble Liberal State that tried to flee its Duties for Mutual Security by claiming Torture and Atrocious Acts from our Sacred Union - a Treasonous and Traitorous Act to begin with. So no, these weasels would not be allowed to slip out by claiming such outrageous Devices, and getting even a majority to approve Secession would be more unlikely than getting a majority to approve real Health Care reform or withdraw backing from the War in Iraq or deny FISA. So then, as stated in Texas v. White, the Cowards' only option would be to resort to Rebellion, and then we would smite them with the full Power of the world's $500 billion/year Armed Forces that maintain Peace on Earth for All - smite them but good, to make sure none of these other smarmy liberals ever considered such a move again. That's how Democracy works. Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, E Pluribus Unum. EEEEE-DITTTHHHH!!!! BRING ME ANOTHER BEER!!! Geez, ain't no one wants to stick around deze days.

Fifteen years ago we fought Milosevic because he tried to keep Yugoslavia together by force. I didn't hear any anti-secessionist Democrats speaking up at the time. I don't think Bosnia sought the Constitutional redress to its grievances that some suggest is the criteria, and it wasn't approved by the Yugoslavian States, so I'm not sure what the anti-secessionists excuse is for mutely or vocally supporting secession militarily. Really, we fought in Bosnia and Albania and sent supplies to Croatia for causes that people call traitorous in another case. Explain yourselves.

For myself I never thought about secession much in my whole life in those terms, until a month ago when the great uproar of "Republicans want to secede over Obama" or perhaps earlier that Todd Palin was part of a secessionist group. My reaction then was, "hypocrites, but fine, go if that's your issue". With all the blue states/red states, I much prefer to have the option of secession, especially when Bush was busy packing the court like it was 1862, putting toe-the-line Republican toadies in all the DoJ positions, having pictures of Abu Ghraib pop up and finding out millions of phone calls are stored and searched. I suppose some people might think things were much more gentile in 1860 than the in-your-face Republicans of today, but that seems unlikely with what we know about Reconstruction, and I guess I hadn't though of before just how trusting in central government Democrats might be, even when seeing large practical examples of how badly it can work against us. Anyway, at least I haven't wasted my time, it's been educational.