Talk:Secession in the United States/Archive 1

New England
I have provided considerable sourced material to address the situation in new England from 1800 through the Hartford convention. I will continue with the events as they relate to the Mexican War. I have removed the Livingston reference since it is vastly overstates the situation in New England. As the other sources I've used demonstrate, the threats of secession did not represent New England as a whole rather than small segments of the political community within New England. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please reference properly
This is a controversial topic so per this Citations guidelines could you use the footnote format as described at References. Also your formatting makes article look messy and, per the first link, keeps it from becoming a featured article. I'll take a look at the actual content later. Thanks. Carol Moore 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Actually I am using he method described in the subsection "Shortened notes". I assume that what you consider "messy" is the use of quotes -- I find this is often necessary in controversial articles, such as this one, especially when other editors rely on non-scholarly works with little analysis. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking further I found References and realized that you were using page numbers in each instance, so it makes sense now. Also, putting columns in notes helped a lot on messiness issue. Thanks! Carol Moore 15:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Notes on Chrono and other changes
Just a couple things noted in quick read through, and notes on changes made, and question:
 * American revolution obviously goes first
 * The antebellum issues should go together, though the issues might be better described in the historical sections. (Or maybe a differennt section called something like "Antebellum Attempts at Secession".
 * Add "Debates about" to Natural right of revolution versus right of secession just for clarity's sake?
 * The phrase "Law professor Daniel Farber defined the the borders of this debate" looks overly definitive, as if he's the final word on the topic and sounds like personal opinion/WP:OR. Should be something like: "Farber's definition of this debate is". Carol Moore 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

POV Pushing??
In an edit summary Carolmooredc accused me of “agenda pushing” regarding the section “Natural right of revolution versus right of secession”. She also suggested above that Farber is being presented “as if he's the final word on the topic”. In fact, the three quotes from Madison, Jackson, and Buchanan (the only three presidents before Lincoln that actually faced secession as a possibility) in the section support Farber, and two of the quotes are placed in context by other reliable historians. The differentiation made by Farber is a distinction that is very common in the historical works coverig that era.

I would be glad to provide a scholarly counterpoint that addresses the issue head on, but I am not aware of any. Some political scientists (Buchanan for example) have created theories of secession in the late 20th Century, but it seems clear that folks in the 18th and 19th Century were not using those theories but were using those theories available to them and a theory that differentiated between secession and a right of revolution did not exist. What did develop in the United States was a specific theory of secession based on the unique American situation. I intend to add this at some point, but, like Carol, I have other things on my plate. Rather than talking about reducing the content that is already here, I would suggest that Carol and others spend their time adding material like this that is still needed.

I suggest if there is an effort to identify “POV pushing” then we look to the claim that this section helps rebut under the American Revolution:


 * “By some theories the American Revolution, in which thirteen British colonies successfully fought for independence from the British Crown, was a secession, as opposed to a revolution.”

The two sources cited include a newspaper reporter who merely mentions it without explaining any actual theory and Thomas DiLorenzo who takes an extremist position describing those who refer to the American Revolution as a revolution when he claims in the cited text:


 * “Perhaps the best evidence of how American history was rewritten, Soviet style, in the post-1865 era is the fact that most Americans seem to be unaware that "Independence Day" was originally intended to be a celebration of the colonists’ secession from the British empire.”

If these are the best sources available, neither of which offers any argument (as pposed to conspiracy theory) to differentiate between “revolution” and “secession”, then perhaps the claim should be dropped. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Give me some time to research, and to suggest shorter version. The bottom line is the whole discussion seems too long and overall WP:undue. Also it seems that more needs to be put in Confederate section on reasons for secession, since I get the impression the main articles linked are pretty much anti-secession. I'm more interested in various modern secession arguments than civil war/states rights, but recognize when some of the better arguments for the latter are missing.  So it's just a note that there seems to be a problem for anyone who passes by, but not one I can immediately address. Hopefully soon after finish off some other projects.  Carol Moore 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * The main articles linked to the Civil War section are neither pro- or anti-secession. They do emphasize, however, the slavery issues because those were the issues that most historians consider as important.  I'm not sure why this article should rehash a subject already adequately addressed, but if you chose to do so it would be inappropriate to create a POV Fork that comes to some different conclusions.   It seems like what hasn't been covered in any detail elsewhere is an adequate discussion of the theory behind CSA secession.  Rather than a natural law argument (such as used in the American Revolution), Calhoun et al used a legalistic argument based on the existence at some time before 1776  in state sovereignty, sovereignty that remained completely intact despite the provisions of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.  CSA brand secession is strictly no fault -- it is secession on demand for any reason (or no reason) at all. As the sources make clear, his type of separation argument makes much more political sense for the slaveholding South than would a revolution for natural rights since the cornerstone of the CSA was slavery -- the most extreme version of natural rights.


 * As far as the preent section being too long, it is only four paragraphs. I would assume that the CSA version would be at least that much.  When you cite WP:undue, remember that the pro-secession view is now, and always has been, a minority view -- the majority anti-secession view deserves, at the least, equal time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to make sure the minority view adequately represented :-) But shall control my carping til ready to do something constructive :-) Carol Moore 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

(1) For a more balanced treatment of Confederate rationales of secession, there might be reference to the Dec 24 Memminger’s SC “Declaration of the Immediate causes which induce and justify the secession of SC…”


 * It has the usual confounding of a human being with a legal construct…then

…the USG failed in its Constitutional obligations to SC because (1) “non-slaveholding states” disagreed “upon the propriety” of slavery, (2) “denounced” slavery as sinful, (3) “denied” slavery within their own borders, (4) “permitted open establishment among them of societies” against slavery, (5) the anti-slavery societies have encouraged fugitive slaves, and have incited slaves to insurrection


 * This is merely the overturned Congressional gag rule writ large. It cited no actual historical events in the manner of a legal bill of indictment as was done in the DOI in the inductive English manner, it laid out general principles of deductive philosophy in the French manner.

(2) There should be a treatment of white French-Haitian émigré influence on SC intellectual history 1791-1860 as related to servile insurrection. The atrocities in the Haitian Revolution on three sides, then both sides, were as ferocious as they were universal.


 * On the other hand, in an US event of an attempted servile insurrection with support from anti- slavery societies in "non-slaveholding states" in 1859, the USG put down John Brown’s rebellion, then ensured his execution following conviction and sentencing in a Virginia state court. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Resumption of powers
I was wondering why Britannica's article on secession didn't discuss the Revolution, then reread the part about "...from a confederacy or composite State, of which it had previously been a part; and the resumption of all powers formerly delegated by it to the Federal Government..." and said aha, that's why. The rebelling colonies didn't claim to be resuming an old sovereignty (that of the various previously vanquished Indian tribes or nations) but to be establishing a new one (or ones) by right of revolution. Which leaves me wondering, why doesn't this article say something about that? Do none of the more modern sources discuss this interesting distinction? Jim.henderson (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Confused on Categories
Ok, going to the category pages, I got confused on what is the right/best way to do it. I assume the more the merrier. If there's some reason to take it out of secession, do tell. Thanks. Carol Moore 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Political Success of the Confederacy?
I have changed an edit that (1) suggested that it was only the USA that was involved in making the issue of secession a matter of a "force of arms" and (2) suggested that the CSA was a political success. On the first issue, the secessionists had failed in the political process to carry their agenda (protection for the expansion of slavery) and eschewed any judicial appeal -- they fired the first shot. On the latter issue, I cannot imagine any objective standards by which the CSA achieved any type of success -- the South's economy was destroyed and a generation of its best and brightest was maimed and killed. Such a unique declaration of CSA success certainly needs to be sourced. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. Alas, the new North-Shoreman Pseudo-History of the War.  Why am I not surprised to see yet more edits which predictably down-play actual historical events, re-toning Northern Union actions?  So, in your POV, the CSA was bent on "force of arms".  Don't forget, now, to go delete all the wiki articles on the various Peace Commissions the South drew up.  CSA put one together, Virginia put on together.  There were various attempts in the US Congress, and so on.  But now ... according to you ... all that must not be true, perhaps.  And as much as my own personal POV is that Lincoln was bent on this, I would NEVER go so far as to try an put that into an actual WIKI article.


 * I am on to you North Shoreman. I've gone back through your history of editing work.  You have some valuable contributions here an there, but you clearly, and I mean clearly have an agenda.  Actual and real historical events are tossed aside, as you have methodically cruised the Civil War wiki articles and attempted (mostly succeeding) in craft in in your POV.  Your unique declarations about the CSA are what needs sourcing.  Your comment that all bright southern people were maimed and killed off is utterly offensive.


 * What wiki needs is work on battles, units, local history pieces, places and so on. Do you ever check the Task Force site to see what work is needed?  Rather, you cruise all these high-level main pages, especially Southern-topic pages, which don't need more interjection, and put in your POV.Grayghost01 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to defer to the Grayghost on the history of North-Shoreman's edits, but that seemed to be a rather broad stroke evaluation. Let's see.

The various southern "peace commissions" in the real historical events were asking Lincoln to refuse to be serve as President, even after his election was constitutionally certified in a joint session of Congress (even before a Republican majority). Lincoln agreed to a Thirteenth Amendment re-guaranteeing slavery in all states where it existed, and that was not good enough for the southern "peace" commissioners. In the real historical events, seven states had factions presuming to secede before Lincoln was inaugurated, hardly a "long train of abuses" for those who would appeal to the DOI, since it documented sixteen years' of real historical events before playing the secession card (Yes, I know North-Shoreman doesn't like that take, I'm looking for a secondary source).

Lincoln and Douglas had declared for Union and both said that they would fight for it (Douglas in the "Norfolk Doctrine"), and Bell was for Union without fighting for it (or against it), so in general terms, we have 85% of the popular vote for Union and 15% against: no success was possible for disunionists in a democracy, no recourse to the "Fire-eaters" but force of arms to overthrow the majority. Douglas went to his death campaigning in Illinois winter rains to raise volunteers for "Lincoln's army". Confederate factors combed Europe buying up serviceable weapons prior to Lincoln's election (a warlike activity, in the event), so that when US buyers tried the same strategy, they purchased arms that would explode on firing, killing more Union troops on the firing range than the first year of battle.

Fortunately, plantation owners had refused to give Eli Whitney any royalties on his invention of the cotton gin, so he moved to Connecticut to start an arms factory of weapons with interchangeable parts. After every battle, US armorers were able to take parts of unserviceable weapons and use their parts for reassembly in the field. But before going too far afield on battles in the secession section, we should look with some more detail at the SC legislature which declared that a reason for secession was that the general government did not supress anti-slavery societies which called slavery a sin. (I'm looking for a secondary source.) The US government was not warlike towards either section. Towards the South, Lincoln suspended the mails, withdrew federal marshals, closed federal courts, peaceably tried to resupply a besieged fort with food according to the laws of nations, were the CSA to be a nation... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence referenceing the south's attempt at secession by "force of arms" displays a POV at offs with the facts. The South wanted to peacefully secede but by attempting to resupply Ft. Sumpter Lincoln demonstrated he did intended use the force of arms to not allow it to do so.  Fort Sumter was bombarded on April 12, 1861.  On April 15, Lincoln called up the militia from all of the states to put into the field an army of more than 75,000 men. The Constitution puts this power with the Congress: Article I, Section 8, sets forth the powers of Congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections....”  Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and imprisoned those who dissented against his policies. When the South, not desiring war, made every effort for peace, he blocked every effort that was made.  Lincoln said, "These rebels are violating the Constitution to destroy the Union; I will violate the Constitution if necessary, to save the Union; and I suspect, Chase, that our Constitution is going to have a rough time of it before we get done with this row" (source: Don Piatt, essay: "Salmon P. Chase," North American Review [1886], Volume CXLIII, pages 606-607). Natwebb (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the above is irrelevant to this article so I won't comment on it. Of course, the CSA would have been much happier if the rest of the country just rolled over and allowed them to exit peacefully. The attempted resupply of Fort Sumter would have done nothing, if successful, but maintain the peaceful status quo. That doesn't change the fact that when this DIDN"T HAPPEN they chose war and chose to fire the first shot.  Contrary to your suggestions, the first attempt to mobilize military forces came in the CSA when Davis and the Confederate Congress authorized 100,000 troops in, I believe, February -- confiscation of Union property began much earlier than that.  The South had PEACEFUL OPTIONS to obtain independence (i.e. constitutional amendment, testing secession in the courts) when they met resistance -- they chose war instead before these options were even considered. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alaska NPOV
Is this part really NPOV?

"In November 2006, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that secession was illegal, Kohlhaas vs. State, and refused to permit an otherwise proper Initiative to be presented to the people of Alaska for a vote." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwahcysl (talk • contribs) 11:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

State of Jefferson
I did not see anything in the main article that referred to the attempts of Northern California and Southern Oregon to join into the State of Jefferson.

Weldrwomn (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So put it in, though sourced info best since I know I don't know off hand if it is true. Carol Moore 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

31 States Claiming / Planning Sovereignty
http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/

better add this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.120.9 (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The web site stated that Arizona, Washington state, Missouri, New Hampshire and Oklahoma are the top five states ready for secession. What about Texas with state governor Rick Perry spoke about the idea the state constitution reserves the right of secession? Alaska and Hawaii have a large minority of residents in many media public opinion polls supported the idea of state secession from the lower 48 states for nearly 50 years after their admission of statehood. The Cascadia Republic movement includes Oregon, parts of Idaho/Montana and northern California along with British Columbia, Canada to pose itself as an international movement. Minnesota or the "North Star Republic" along with Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, the five New England states each have a secessionist movement, the Republic of Aztlan in Mexican-American communities of the Southwest states of New Mexico with southern Colorado, south or West Texas and southern California; and the ten or twelve Southeastern states of the historic Confederacy has a Southern cause of retro/neo-Confederate secession in the "C.S.A./Southron state" movements.+ 71.102.2.206 (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The US Libertarian Party was involved in the Free State Project, a political grassroots movement to create self-government in about 5 or 10 least populated states in the union: Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, North and South Dakotas, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wyoming. Also they are involved in 8 or 9 other states of Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The mission statement is for state governments to operate more freely without high levels of federal intervention and the right to constitutionally to nullify federal laws that may violate the agreement of union association with the states' constitutions. This is not a secessionist drive, but to protect state sovereignity and enforce constitutional laws. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What do WP:RS say? Actually a few have opined of late and I'm behind on updating this article and dealing with some of the questionable POV issues I've discussed above. It is getting higher on my list to devote a day or two to, however. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

March 22 Edits
I reversed two edits that added unsourced material that appears to be Original Research or to push a specific POV. Twice the edits refer to the American Revolution as if it were an example of secession -- at best a minority view. The edit claims that when the DOI discusses “ light and transient causes “ it is making a distinction between “rebellion” and “a defense of natural rights” -- an interpretation contrary to the plain language used and standard interpretations in which the DOI was justifying a rebellion or revolution in support of natural rights. Finally the editor relates specific clauses of the Constitution to an intent to prohibit future secession -- while I agree that these clauses are incompatible with the concept of secession, it is necessary to have a reliable secondary source to support the conclusions stated as to the purpose in adding them to the Constitution.

If any of the material is added back in needs to be supported by references to reliable secondary sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC) --- Ok, I’m new to this. I plead for the tag "needs reference" instead of purging.

(1) I used the idea of the American Revolution as secession due to the "plain meaning" of "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another", as in, bands of iron hoops which a cooper of the time would use to unite the separate staves of a barrel. It is not about marriage "banns"...Also, the American Revolution as secession was used in wikipedia discussion elsewhere without qualification on the "Secession" page, the link I used to find "Secession in the United States", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession. I wanted to connect with previous entries rather than write my own, so I used existing phraseology.

(2) The distinction between rebellion against authority which cannot be justified and self-defense of natural rights which can be defended (including violence) is in several places of John Locke's work which was available to Thomas Jefferson. One discussion is found in Two Treatises of Civil Government, sections 228 and 229. An 1887 edition found at Google Books published by Ballantine Books, pages 310 and 311. But that doesn't have the phrases Jefferson lifted from Locke such as "light and transient causes" and others, which is what I think you want to see. I'll find it again.

(3) I meant for participants in the Constitutional Convention to have their own voice. One of the defects of the Confederation as requiring the Constitution was refered to by John Randolph of Virginia in the Constitutional Convention, on the defects of the Articles of Confederation, Tuesday, May 29, "2. that the federal government could not check the quarrels between states, nor a rebellion in any, not having the constitutional power or means to interpose according to the exigency". Google Books Madison’s Journal of the Constitutional Convention, 1908 edition. page 13. .

(4)  I would enjoy contributing to the subject, and I would follow the guidelines. I intend that references to John Locke in Two Treatises for the Declaration and John Randolph in the Constitutional Convention in Madison’s Journal for the Constitution, as the POV of Locke and Randolph, not my POV, verifiable online at Google Books citations, and not original research, since the Google Books are in the public domain.

Help. I have the feeling I still don’t get it. Does secondary sourcing mean contemporary scholarship? -- TheVirginiaHistorian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk • contribs) 00:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Both Locke’s Treatises and Madison’s Journal are primary sources. You really need to become familiar with Wikipedia policy on original research, especially WP:PRIMARY.   From that section:


 * Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.


 * Your opinion or my opinion on the significance of anything written by Locke or Madison is irrelevant to this article. What would be relevant is an interpretation of their works published by a reputable  historian or political scientist.  Madison, Jackson, Henry, and Buchanan are directly quoted in the article, but only because secondary sources have provided the necessary interpretation and context for those quotes.


 * As far as referring to the American Revolution as secession, this is discussed above in the section “POV Pushing??” Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Racial-based secession
Some sections of the USA as we all know has a non-white American majority: The Black belt sections where African-Americans are over 50% of county populations of eastern Mississippi, central Alabama, southern Georgia, inland South Carolina and western Tennessee, has attracted a small vocal minority of Black/African American militant groups since the civil rights era to establish a black American majority nation: "Republic of New Africa" or the "Zionist African Republic of America" to compare themselves to the state of Israel (the Zionist movement concept of a homeland for global Jews) as a safe haven for an oppressed racial minority. Also is the Republic of Aztlan for Mexican-Americans in an attempt to reverse the Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty of 1848 gave former Mexican land to the United States, the Republic of Aztlan encompasses most of the four/five or six Southwest States (if you include Utah, Colorado & Nevada), and to restore goepolitical identity as a Latin American country. I won't be surprised if the American Indian Movement, the Mexica Movement and the Republic of Lakotah may have a secessionist drive for Indian reservations like the Sioux of South Dakota, the Navajo of Arizona and the Cherokee of Oklahoma (though not a federal BIA recognized land) to become independent republics. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a place for WP:SOAPBOX discussion of personal views. If you have WP:reliable sources to discuss on these topics, that's something else. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the most famous?
Right here, Secession in the United States, in the first line of the Confederate States of America section, it states that it is/was "One of the most famous unsuccessful secession movements". Is there an instance on par with the Southern secession that I'm not aware of? I think its a fact that it is the most "famous". Perhaps we could call it "the most noteworthy", or "the most successful attempt"? 66.224.3.237 (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Go for it! CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Shame on me for not saying "Go for it" if it has a WP:RS source. Sometimes the mind blanks out on wikipolicy!! Obviously another editor has found the sources don't support that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Akhil Reed Amar and IP edits
An IP editor is attempting to inject his own opinion into the article regarding material sourced to Akhil Reed Amar. At first I reverted it because it was not sourced.

The IP repeated the effort, but this time he simply provided footnotes to two separate works and drew his own conclusions from those works. In the first case, he simply listed another work by Amar and repeated his previous criticism of why Amar was wrong. In the second case, he quoted from Vattel, written well before there was a United States, and claims that somehow this relates to the United States Constitution and proves Amar is wrong.

The IP can certainly provide scholarly, sourced criticism that addresses Amar’s specific arguments. He/she can also provide scholarly, sourced material which cites Vattel’s arguments to make a point that is related to the topic of the article. What he/she can’t do is continue to offer his/her personal opinion of what Amar missed in his analysis.

If I am missing something, her is the place for the IP to clarify what he/she is attempting to accomplish. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Change to Lede
An IP added the following to the article lede w/o any explanation:

''In this instance secession was sought peacefully and hostilities did not begin until Union officials refused to vacate what was claimed as state land at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. When Union troops refused to leave the federal installation the Confederate forces opened fire, thus marking the beginning of the Civil War.''

This is unsourced, POV, and over-simplified as far as the claim that the South sought peaceful secession. While this was certainly their wish, it was also the Union's wish that they return peacefully -- in fact the South started mobilizing for war several months ahead of the Union and even before Fort Sumter seized federal property w/o any attempt to negotiate. Both sides had some basis for their expectations although both were very wrong in those expectations and the war came. In any event, the article lede (and indeed the entire article) is not the place to discuss the details of the Fort Sumter crisis. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it was unsourced POV and would have deleted it too if noticed it first. WP:RS info on such debates belongs in any appropriate section, but probably of another article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)