Talk:Secession in the United States/Archive 2

Supreme Court rulings in lead
Good evening. I'm new to editing Wikipedia entries, so I'm afraid I'm not understanding your comment. What was my error on the source citation?Justin(History) (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My edit summary read: (removed editor's wp:OR of put in wording and conclusion not in the source) Look at WP:Original research. It means that you cannot draw your own conclusions about what the authors write, which you do in saying the court ruled against unilateral secession. The authors that are your source say something more nuanced than the conclusion you personally draw. If you have additional sources that make that conclusion they would be appropriate in the section on the decision, balanced by the view already there. In any case it doesn't belong in the lead because it's a longer and more nuanced statement than usually put in leads. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we disagree on the author's point on what "Consent of the States" means, so I'm fine setting aside this point of contention. However, when opening a discussion on secession in the United States, it's important to include up front that SCOTUS has spoken on the issue and ruled the secession of states unconstitutional - Texas v. White isn't vague or unsettled on that point.  Without a reference to the controlling legal precedent under American law, the lead (which is too often all many users read) can leave the impression that the legal question of secession is unsettled, when in fact the question is as closed within American constitutional law as any constitutional question can be.  My suggestion instead would be the following text accompanised by the Cornell citation on Texas v. White - "The Supreme Court ruled state secession unconstitutional in 1869."  Citation, formatted for footnote, would read "(Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) at Cornell University Law School Supreme Court collection)" as it does elsewhere in Wikipedia (I think a function of the fact that the case was argued in 1868 but the ruling was handed down in April 1869).Justin(History) (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Williams vs. Bruffy SC case I just entered further supports a recognition by the court that successful secession is, after all, successful and therefore defacto legitimate secession. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made the decision to redact myself here after I realized looking at your Wikipedia page that we disagree on secession as a concept, making my concluding question more rhetorical than I realized. But to your point - Williams vs. Bruffy simply restates the "revolution" clause in Texas v. White - without those ritual nods toward recognizing successful secession, the Court would have accidentally unhinged the constitutional foundations of American independence.  That doesn't change the fundamental point that from a legal and constitutional perspective secession is unconstitutional. In a Wikipedia entry whose lead includes the state of American popular opinion on secession in a poll, a reference to the unconstitutionality of secession is not out of place.  Anyone considering supporting secession needs to realize the full scale of resistance they'll encounter, not just overwhelming opposition in opinion, but the legal precedents that will shape federal responses to any such attempt.  Thus, the suggested text I entered above, with its footnote, should be added after the sentence in the existing entry on the opinion poll.Justin(History) (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Declaration of Independence (July 4th being a national holiday) states the right to alter or abolish government - that certainly includes secession. The Declaration is or more a living document than the Constitution (which could be altered after all to explicitly recognize a right to secession). Therefore the Supreme Court may be smart enough to know that the Constitution (which has a celebration date which few people know because it isn't a national holiday) doesn't trump the Declaration of Independence. The Texas v. White case text is temporarily down, so I don't even know if it uses the word "unconstitutional." Bruffy case is it up and it doesn't use that word, thought it uses "illegal." Anyway, to repeat what I said above, if you want to bring the issue up in the lead, you have to bring up the whole issue, not just half of it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In law, which determines how a government reacts to a group deciding to try to unravel the Union, the Declaration has no force - only the Constitution matters. There is no other half to the issue of whether or not secession is constitutional - the case law is settled and has been for a hundred and forty years.  To not present this in the lead is to leave a skewed presentation of the debate over secession.Justin(History) (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The preamble to the Declaration of Independence, as is the case with any other law, is not operative. So even if your opinion that the Constitution cannot trump the latter were true, it would still not matter. But, you are wrong in that opinion. If you weren't, the federal government would not have sovereignty, and it would be manifest that states can "secede" from the union as they would "[be], and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States". The philosophy underpinning the resolution of "independency" as it was often called, was summed up in the Declaration, but does not draw its force from it. In other words, "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" is true, if it is true, because it is a "self-evident" truth, not because it was held to be so in the Declaration. Therefore, it is a mistake to rely on the Declaration as magical, super-entrenched legal authority for secession. By the way, Texas v. White is also available here. -Rrius (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that there is a caveat in both rulings which is relevant to the topic of secession in the United States. It seems to me that by trying to put just one part of both the rulings in, in the lead, that you are trying to make a POV point. And the Supreme Court is NOT the final decider anyway, since a law of Congress (not forbidden in the rulings) or a Constitutional Amendment could make secession legal. Or a president and congress could just refuse, fail or be unable to do anything about it should it happen. I can - and will - find a reference on one or more of those options from a WP:RS when I work on the article more. So do we need to discuss all of US constitutional law regarding secession in the lead? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My point had nothing to do with that whatever. I don't care enough to get at the heart of this discussion. I just couldn't let that point about the Declaration of Independence go unchallenged, and I wanted to point you to a working link for White. -Rrius (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A constitutional amendment is the only way to overturn the Supreme Court - Congressional acts do not accomplish that task. The Supreme Court is, short of the amendation process, the final decider on constitutional matters.  We should discuss US consttutional law in the lead of an article on secession in the United States because the secession is a political process, and the political process in America is governed by the Constitution.  The ruling is not unclear, and it doesn't offer any cover for the idea that secession might be legal or constitutional.  To present the predominant modern constitutional consensus and controlling precedent alongside interpretations eclipsed in law a century and a half ago as though they were equal, or to avoid in the lead a mention of the constitutional and legal discussion that would immediately rise to the fore in any real-world question over secession is to make a POV point.  But this is not my page, so I will leave you to it.Justin(History) (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As no one in fact ‘owns’ this article and from reading the discussion it seems clear to me that neither Justin nor Carol are going to concede their points may I suggest opening the discussion up to a wider audience in an attempt to build a consensus? As this page is within the scope of the WIkiproject United States I’ve taken the liberty of requesting input through their notice board.

For my part I am inclined to agree with Justin’s argument. Texas v. White is clear that as far as the law is concerned secession is unconstitutional (the U.S. Supreme Court saying something is prohibited under the law makes it unconstitutional baring a constitutional amendment) while Williams vs. Bruffy SC simply states that the rule of law is null and void if it can be overcome by force (which of course has been a practical reality throughout human experience – although I have to say I was unaware that any legal body would actually be willing to concede that). Including the relevant legal ruling in the lead is at least as important as an opinion poll (which has no legal standing at all – personally I would actually suggest moving the opinion poll down to the ‘Recent efforts in the United States’ section as a 2008 opinion poll doesn’t seem to me to be particularly important to the issue as a whole, but I suspect such a move would simply inflame emotion and not help resolve the issue at hand). Including Texas v. White does not appear to me to be a POV inclusion while an opinion poll is by definition nothing more than the POV of the individuals who participated in the poll.--Ndunruh (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking at the comments on this thread, it seems that the conversation has very little to do with actually improving the article. It looks to be an ideological debate, rather than a serious attempt to use wikipedia policies and guidelines to come to some form of amicable conclusion. In fact, if one were to just skim over the comments, one would be hard pressed to find any suggestions at all in how to improve the article.
 * From what I can gather, Justin Henry wants to add information to the lead of the article that mentions the Supreme Court cases on this topic, and Carol Moore is opposed?
 * Am I right or am I wrong?
 * If that is the case, then we must remember that the lead is an overview of the entire article. Its there to allow a reader to have a quick idea of what the article is as a a hole. That being said: If its in the body of the article, than it should have abrief mention in the lead. Per wiki Policy/Guidelines.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jojhutton, your summary of my position is correct, thank you. That is what I thought would improve the article.  To Ndunruh, while I'm not prepared to concede my point, I should make it clear that I won't defy a consensus, should one be reached, and that I will make no further changes to the article until and unless this is resolved.  To all on this thread, including Carolmooredc, thank you for your contributions to the discussion.Justin(History) (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying he misstates your position is not terribly helpful. What, in one sentence, is your point? -Rrius (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the summary of my position was exactly correct. I didn't intend to say anyone misstated my position.  In one sentence, my point is that the lead to the article should include a reference to the Supreme Court's ruling that secession is unconstitutional.Justin(History) (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I read "incorrect" where you said "correct". -Rrius (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries.Justin(History) (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My position was misstated. It is that if Supreme Court rulings on the legality of states choosing to secede is mentioned in the lead, its twice recognizing defacto secession as a possiblity may occur also should be, as it is in the article itself.
 * Also, in response to another point, while there may not be enough WP:RS to make it notable in the lead, I have a feeling when I work on the article I'll find some WP:RS on the issue of whether Congress may allow one or more states to secede (for whatever reason), something which could be seen as under "defacto" secession under Texas v White and Bruffy. But otherwise I don't believe the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled on that matter one way or the other. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To your second point, the only thing I am aware of from SCOTUS on non-unilateral secession is the Texas v. White mention of "Consent of the States." I don't think either SCOTUS or the Congress has ever worked out the specifics of what that means, but seeing the assent of Congress to a state departing the Union as a means of the States offering their consent would seem to be within that ruling, at least to me, although what majority would be required (simple, two-thirds, unanimous?) might be a sticky point in practice.  If distant and faint memory serves, the Canadian Supreme Court's ruling on Quebecois secession from the mid-1990s touched on that point as it cited Texas v. White.Justin(History) (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Carol, as a compromise would you accept something along the lines of. 'The U.S. Supreme Court twice addressed the issue of secession, ruling that the act is unconstitutional, but suggesting that there may be other means of dissolving the union.'?--Ndunruh (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Something along that lines good, though I think we can be more explicit and say that the court recognized secession being illegal/unconstitutional/whatever-wording-WP:RS but admitted the govt. could not necessarily stop defacto secession (or whatever more explicit wording best). I do intend to read both rulings (Texas and Bruffy) pretty soon and look for what some other WP:RS say. (For both lead and the relevant section of the article.) Busy busy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Carol, I sympathize with you as regards being busy. I looked over Williams v. Bruffy, and the excerpt in the main body of this article sums up the Court's position pretty well - if a secession attempt succeeds, the acts of its government are valid, but if it fails and is reconquered, the acts effectively evaporate.  That excerpt follows its equally brief discussion of revolutionary governments and how they become recognized, and a section explaining that the federal government's granting of belligerent status to the CSA's military forces was normal for governments fighting a rebellion or insurrection, and not to be taken as recognition.  Putting Texas v. White and Williams v. Bruffy together, here's my stab at a compromise addition to the lead based on Ndunruh's suggestion:  "The United States Supreme Court twice addressed the issue of secession, ruling unilateral secession unconstitutional.  However, its rulings hint that secession could be consented to by the States as a whole, and note that successful acts of secession can produce recognized new governments."  I think that gets to the heart of the relevant passages in White and Bruffy in explicit but neutral language.  What does everyone think?Justin(History) (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since that is all just dicta, it shouldn't go in the lead. Putting it there creates the impression that, as a matter of law, de facto secession means something. That is not the case. Not every word in an judicial opinion is an expression of law. Only that which is necessary to the holding is of legal effect. -Rrius (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

JustInHistory's summary looks good. Wikipedia is not a circumcised legal brief, it is an encyclopedia which is supposed to show the whole factual picture. Especially on an issue of increasing interest. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rrius, fair point, given that this is the only reference in the lead to the legal questions at stake - would this be better? "The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional.  However, it rulings provide interesting commentary on the underlying debate."  That could encourage readers to visit this article's section on Supreme Court rulings, where the dicta I believe is included verbatim.Justin(History) (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "interesting commentary on the underlying debate" is what is commonly called WP:Weasel words. "that successful acts of secession can produce recognized new governments" pretty much describes what is said in both Texas vs. White and Williams vs. Bruffy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Take out "intersting", and it is unassailable fact. The discussion is purely obiter dicta, meaning it is commentary, a rule of law. -Rrius (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is another swing at a compromise, included here with the sentences already in the lead for easier contextualization - this would move the reference to immediately after the lead references theories of a constitutional "right" to secede and the natural right of revolution - "Attempts or aspirations of secession from the United States have been a feature of the politics of the country since its birth. The line between actions based on an alleged constitutional right of secession as opposed to actions justified by the extraconstitutional natural right of revolution has shaped the political debate. The United States Supreme Court ruled secession unconstitutional, while offering obiter dicta commentary that a successful secession would force de jure recognition of de facto reality."  Thoughts?Justin(History) (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd make a few minor tweaks, but otherwise I'm fine with it, "Attempts or aspirations of secession from the United States have been a feature of the politics of the country since its birth. The line between actions based on an alleged constitutional right of secession as opposed to actions justified by the extraconstitutional natural right of revolution has shaped the political debate. The United States Supreme Court ruled secession unconstitutional, while suggesting in obiter dicta that a successful secession would force de jure recognition of de facto reality." "obiter dicta" makes for an awkward adjective, and "de jure" and "de facto" have been borrowed into English. -Rrius (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The changes look good to me - thanks for the correction! Carol?Justin(History) (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like the last part does nothing more than state the obvious. By definition, a "successful secession" achieves independence.  It doesn't belong in the lead nor does it require a Supreme Court interpretation to make it true.  If you go to the actual quote added to the body of the article, it simply says "The validity of its acts ... depends entirely upon its ultimate success."  In other words, regardless of the legality of its actions to obtain independence (and neither decision is at all equivocal about the illegality of secession), in the end legalities don't matter since the final arbiter is which side carried the day (i.e. won the war). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the first sentence, it pretty much says just what I've said should be said about the S.C. decisions: ''Attempts or aspirations of secession from the United States have been a feature of the politics of the country since its birth. The line between actions based on an alleged constitutional right of secession as opposed to actions justified by the extraconstitutional natural right of revolution has shaped the political debate.[1]'' Just in a way that might makes more sense to the average reader, this sentence being a bit academic jargonese. So any addition should go after that (possibly less jargony) sentence and amplify it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Carol, I'm unclear on your last post - are you saying the addition we're making should be placed after ". . . since it's birth."? Also, are you okay with the content of the sentence as Rrius edited it?Justin(History) (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You should be unclear since I misread previous posts! So I struck my comment. Though I do think the legal jargon makes it less than clear to the average reader what the paragraph means. So with that in mind, and having been reminded of what the article says about the two reasons states might successfully secede, let me suggest:
 * Attempts at or aspirations of secession from the United States have been a feature of the country's politics since its birth. Some have argued for a constitutional right of secession and others for a natural right to revolution. The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession illegal while suggesting the possibility that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're almost to a consensus. Given Rrius' concerns, I think we should change "suggesting the possibility" to "commenting that."  Also, since "unconstitutional" is a stronger term than "illegal," I think we need to change that as well.  My suggested changes to your suggestion would thus be:
 * "Attempts at or aspirations of secession from the United States have been a feature of the country's politics since its birth. Some have argued for a constitutional right of secession and others for a natural right to revolution. The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession."Justin(History) (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Close enough :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! If no one raises any additional concerns by the end of the day, I'll make the change.  Thanks for your help, input, and patience!  Justin(History) (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Editing now - thanks to all for your input and participation!Justin(History) (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court decision used to argue that secession is illegal is actually more nuanced. What the Court was actually saying is that it is illegal unless you have sufficient force of arms to enforce it. The Confederacy failed because President Lincoln had a vastly superior military force. Failing the force of arms, you can still secede if the US Congress passes a resolution recognizing you as a seperate state. The Constitutiona itself is actually neutral on the matter. In summary, what the Court said was that, in order to secede you must either have overwhelming force of arms at your disposal or have the consent of the United States government as expressed through the Congress (not the President) of the United States. The Confederacy also failed on this regard in that they did not have Congressional approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.19.63 (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are wrong about how the decision is being used in the article. It says, "However, the decision did allow some possibility of the divisibility .through revolution, or through consent of the States'".

There is no difference between the secession of the CSA and the American Revolution against the British Empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.153.237 (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No one is arguing that the Supreme Court decision cited herein absolutely bars secession. The sentence in the introduction reads "The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional" - emphasis on "unilateral."  We are arguing that this decision bars a state from leaving the Union with only the consent of that's State's residents.  The Court's reference to "Consent of the States" doesn't offer any specifics - it's not clear, for example, that the Court might not have meant that all the States had to consent, not just a majority passing a resolution in Congress - but it does emphasize that as the US Constitution vested sovereignty in the American people as a whole, and not in the states ("We the people"), the sovereign people of America as a whole would have to consent to any part of America leaving to become its own entity.  Since our independent self-government as a nation was founded in revolution, the Court aknowledged that the sovereign people might also show their choice in a new revolution.


 * While there is some truth in your comparison of the departure of the thirteen colonies from the British Empire to the failed attempt at independence by the southern states from the USA - namely that the simple, brutal fact is that preponderance of capacity for violence determines the outcome of any dispute for which the disputing parties have abandoned law - but there is a crucial difference from the point of view of this Court ruling. The American Revolution was not just a war of secession - it was also a revolution that rearranged the social, cultural, and political nature of life in what had been British America.  The loss of monarchy, aristocracy, and deeply rooted social conventions of heirarchy and deference in favor of the then-revolutionay politics and culture of equal individuals and sovereign people was radical change.  The ideas embodied in this first successful revolution of the Atlantic world would go on to inform numerous other revolutions, and have become the common currency of democratic societies around the world across many cultural boundaries.  The secession of America's southern states - which aimed to protect an existing legal and cultural structure from change - was not sovereign people engaging in revolution.  It was an attempt by the leading classes of a hierarchical society founded on the forced labor of a huge segment of the sovereign people who had been reduced to the status of property under law to prevent the coming revolutionary change of restoring legal humanity to the enslaved.  Revolution by the sovereign people came once the south abandoned law and the north chose to end its complicity in these atrocities by the revolutionary changes of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments - achieved by the force the majority of the soveriegn people could bring to bear in war.  Revolution was on the side of the Union, not the secessionists, and the Consent of the States was denied by virtue of the fact that the secessionists were in the minority.  When force of arms failed, the Constitution survived and was restored.  Thus, in fact and in the legal view of this Supreme Court decision, the crucial difference between the independence of America and the failed southern secession was the fact that the sovereign American people enacted revolution in the first case by achieving independence and a new sociocultural order, and the sovereign American people were forced to enact revolution in the second case by defeating southern attempts to preserve the old sociocultural order - and thus freed Americans from a tyranny more pernicious than that of Parliament.Professor Storyteller (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A) "We" (i.e., wikipedia editors) don't argue in the text of the article, we reflect WP:RS. (We can argue about what those are or what they say here on talk page.) B) Sentence in question reflects both views reading: "The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession." because WP:RS make it clear that the decision does recognize defacto secession, which a reading of the case confirms. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As to a), "We" meant those who argued in favor of the verbiage that ultimately was included, and those who supported their point of view -I was not attempting to include all wikipedia editors in my statement. As to b), the SCOTUS decision on Texas did not address de facto secession one way or the other - it was specifically about the legality and constitutionality of secession under the United States Constitution.  Its decision in this regard held that only two mechanisms might make secession constitutional - the "Consent of the States," which it did not explain any further, and "revolution," which is a nod to the idea underpinning all of American constitutional history, that the revolution of sovereign people - which created independent America - is legitimate as a form for creating new governments, because if it were not then the Court would have accidentally undermined the foundation of American independence.  I think the decision you're thinking of that addresses de facto secession is Williams v. Bruffy.  There the Court recognized the obvious, that successful application of force in support of secession creates a new entity, but the decision is in effect the same as the "revolution" statement in the Texas decision - if the Court denied the legitimacy of force of arms in creating new governments, American independence would be legally undermined.


 * Given that this entire thread is a discussion of the constitutionality of secession under the US Constitution as interprested by the Supreme Court, questions of success or failure on the battlefield is a bit far afield, but I suppose necessary to fully address the hyptothetical under debate - secession in modern America. History shows that successful secession requires either a) convincing defeat of the forces of the nation attempting to prevent secession on the battlefield, sufficient to make the central government abandon efforts at resistance (as happened within Parliament at the end of the American Revolution), b) the collapse of the nation-building effort within an existing nation, leaving no one in the nation's population, leadership, or military forces prepared to defend the idea of the nation against dissolution (as happened within the Soviet empire beginning in the late 1980s and culminating in the waves of secession that destroyed the USSR in 1991), or c) legal and constitutional structures which allow for departures, as has evolved in Canada since the mid-1990s (though Quebec's people fell short of the vote needed to take advantage of their Supreme Court's position on the issue at the time).  Any discussion of hypothetical secession in current America has to focus on c) because would-be secessionists face an impossible challenge in attempting to challenge a military with vast advantages in class and number of weapons, leaving a) impossible, and also face a vigorous and constantly renewing nation-building effort that makes b) impossible within any near-term timeline - note the fact that three-quarters of Americans surveyed do not believe states or other subdivisions of America have the right to leave at their unilateral discretion, a finding well past the point of a national consensus.  However, c) also leaves no room for current secessionist goals, as the Supreme Court has made clear the US Constitution will only allow secession from a legal perspective if the rest of the nation agrees (impossible with a three-quarters majority opposed) or if successful revolution occurs in support of dissolving America (impossible with the same three-quarters majority, much less the evident and ongoing nation-building successes around us).  A sitting Associate Justice recently addressed the issue after being asked to by an American writing a screenplay on the issue, dismissing the idea of even a legal question over secession by pointing out that the issue was as settled as law can be.  By addressing all three avenues for secession in our debate thread, we better understand the current environment for advocates of secession and their lack of success - advocacy against a three-quarters majority being the only option currently available.Professor Storyteller (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think my real objection was the unnecessarily long explanation given that looks more like an argument for a certain view than an explanation of why the text is as it is; and the above response to me goes on in that vain. In other words you are replying to his one sentence WP:SOAPBOX with a many sentence WP:SOAPBOX and I think we want to keep away from soapbox on this issue. In fact, we probably should archive old issues so that old talk page discussions are not unnecessarily reopened - unless someone new to the page sees a problem in the actual article text. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph in my initial post addressed the misapprehension by the original poster that the article as written somehow claimed that the Texas decision prohibited secession absolutely. The second paragraph in the initial post did indeed answer to the ahistorical assertion that followed, though it is neither a soapbox nor an argument for a certain view, but a distillation of historical scholarship on the topic.  There, unfortunately, the explanation is as short as it can be and still cover the necessary ground - compacting a few thousand pages of scholarly work into 429 not very scholarly words.  That having been said, I quite agree that we need to archive this entire discussion.  Getting to a consensus was a lengthy process, fraught with conflict among passionately held points of view, and I for one would be loath to go through all that again - though we still need to be able to get to it if another flare of controversy were to erupt later simply from the text of the article itself.  What do we need to do to achive all this where it can be restored if needed?Professor Storyteller (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

<---I'll put in an archive box so people can easily get to it and still link to any relevant discussions. Been running into too much soapbox lately so see it everywhere now! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! (And I guess as a history professor I see a lack of history education everywhere because I see it in my poor students every day . . . )Professor Storyteller (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Should Kentucky be included
Theres been a pretty big push for secession in Kentucky led by a group called the United Kentucky Liberation Front. They do "cyber attacks" and release government contacts, embarrasing presidential pictures, and send viruses and spam to officials and claim Kentucky is legally free because of the civil war (only state not readmitted to the Union), a petition, being recognized by spain, and the proclamation of 1763. Heres some sites with info: a 4chan link and this one: google knol link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kofbritain (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick point a bit unrelated to your question, but FYI - Kentucky was readmitted to the Union, or else it would not send Representatives to the House and Senators to the Senate. The states attempting secession in the Civil War were all readmitted by March 1877, when the Great Betrayal ended Reconstruction.
 * As to the question of inclusion, I have a question for you in return - do you have any sense of the scope of this movement?Professor Storyteller (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have WP:reliable sources like newspaper articles about this group, it would be relevant. Otherwise just a bunch of guys on the internet. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Carol - I was rewriting my post to make that make better sense, but that's what I was aiming for. Something from newspapers or newswire services - AP, Reuters, etc. - would be best.


 * Also, to clarify what I said above - Kentucky's case is complex because of rival state leadership and participation by Kentuckians on both sides during the Civil War, but without either formal restoration or a continuous delegation in Congress - which would indicate continued membership in the Union - Kentucky today would not have a presence in Congress.Professor Storyteller (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A Kentucky section, and one on Missouri, might be featured in a section on seceded governments in exile. The US House of Representatives chose to recognize a full complement of Missouri and Kentucky representatives throughout the Civil War and Reconstruction when those of other confederated States were interrupted.
 * Entire delegations were seated, every Congressional District in Missouri and Kentucky for the 37th, 38th, 39th and 40th Congresses (KY 2nd District vacant in the 40th). See Kenneth C. Martis, 'The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress'. If the US Congress said that elections were held, candidates chosen, and Representatives seated, it is difficult to argue to the contrary -- relative to the US Government.
 * Other circumstances obtained in Congressional seating in Tennessee and Virginia, for instance.
 * Expanding into governments-in-exile might raise questions about article scope. Would it include those (French, Polish) in England during World War II? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In reference to the TheVirginiaHistorian, I'm not certain, but I think you are agreeing with my point that the continuation of these delegations puts Kentucky in the same category as states whose delegations were reseated after Reconstruction, and that the claim that Kentucky was never readmitted is false. As for governments-in-exile, I believe that to be beyond the scope of the article on Secession in the United States - and I still await any outside verification of the activities of this organization.Professor Storyteller (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kentucky was never officially readmitted, at least not in the sense the other confederate states were readmitted. You would have to consider it a government in exile I guess. It seems this is one of those grey areas.74.142.146.80 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have for that assertion?Professor Storyteller (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Kentucky and Missouri never lost representation in the US Congress, so there was no need to re-admit in the eyes of the US Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In Kleber’s ‘The Kentucky Encyclopedia’, 1992, p.418-19, found online for free at Google Books, Pollard and Davis, there is reference to
 * (a) two Kentucky secessionist conventions which arrived at no action,
 * (b) the legislature’s proclamations of neutrality between the Lincoln government and the Davis government, and
 * (c) a provisional exile government which basically followed along in company of the Confederate Army under General Bragg.

The first Confederate Kentucky Governor George Johnson, was killed at Shiloh. He was then succeeded by Richard Hawes who survived The War.
 * A quick search on Kentucky and exile government in Google Books, “The Lost Cause” by Pollard, and “The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government” by Jefferson Davis, make no mention of a government in exile. But both Davis and Pollard commend those Kentuckians who fled their state to fight in grey.
 * I gotta go with the professor on this one. Maybe we should have a note memorializing the Missouri and Kentucky exile governments, set in the secessionist conventions … "independent states" unformed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable.Professor Storyteller (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

City secession and tongue in cheek
Of course, there might by a separate tongue in cheek secession article, to include Key West, Florida and the "Conch Republic".
 * But sometimes truth is said in jest. During the depression, family lore has it that Monroe County, Florida, issued its own script to pay employees,and Key West petitioned the Florida legislature to UN-incorporate to reduce expenses. FDR is said to have intervened personally, saying that there would be no political dissolution during his presidency. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And Absaroaka tried to form itself out of states in the Great Plains, going so far as to have a beauty pagent. But I tend to agree that those secession attempts which are deadly serious and those which are speaking truth "in jest" should have their own article, lest those cataloging serious attempts at secession accidentally include the less-than-serious use of secession as a means of drawing attention to serious problems.Professor Storyteller (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Conch Republic is an article. Actually it is referred to frequently in secession news articles, mostly to make fun of secessionists. So it is not entirely irrelevant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "Strangers" have not a clue (strangers = not-Conch folk, as in, my mother married a "stranger"). In the Depression the Key West fishing fleet would sell catch on the docks until noon. After then, anyone, black, white or Cuban, could take for their family need at no charge; and yes, cash folks bought less when the waiting line was longer. Secession requires a sense of connected community, first and foremost, even if its in the negative. One of the once New York artsy transplant naturalized conch said, "New York is crazy. I'm never going back there." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

serious article criteria
What could our consensus criteria be for the "serious" secession movement, successful or not? Freehling does some serious work on explicating Southern pride, self-identification, and its estrangement from the "self-righteous puritan yankee" union ... as a way to explain the origins and continuation of outvoted, outnumbered and unrecognized rebellion persisting to 600,000 dead. How is an intellectuaal history to be measured? We could admit a literature or language (like Greece under Turkey, but not Esperanza)? A loss of life of __ hundreds (like the South in the US)? __ percent of a population's opposition in a defined territory (like the Basques in Spain)? Sustained effort over __ months (like the Irish in the UK)? ... three of five or six? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The criteria is what WP:reliable sources say is serious - or important. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that within the CSA during the Civil War, support faded in many areas after the first few years, leading to efforts across the secessinist states to abandon the CSA and the attempted secession or just go their own way. The hardships that hit the secessionist states in the war, as well as the mistakes of the Davis administration, went a long way to changing some people's minds in mid-conflict and laying the groundwork for the events in war's aftermath.
 * As far as a "serious" secession movement, I would think the first step would be deciding if the secessionist movement actually states its intention to seriously separate a portion of territory or a group of people from an existing polity. Something like the Conch Republic, which seems to have started as a semi-humorous way to point out the unfairness of setting up a border patrol checkpoint that separates part of America from the rest of it, and then moved on to bring attention to even more serious issues before becoming a source of tourist revenue, is definitely something that merits inclusion in Wikipedia - but I don't know that they ever seriously stated their intention to leave the State of Florida and the USA.
 * Contrast that with something like the AIP in the 1990s, or the Vermont Republic movement, or the Republic of Lakotah, or the movements to restore Hawaii's pre-annexation government, which though facing extremely long odds with extremely limited resources, are extremely serious about their intention to leave the USA. I don't think measuring the seriousness of a secession movement by the military costs is the right way to go, because there are many secession movements in the USA and around the world that are serious and relevant but committed to non-violence.  Of course violent attacks on polities are a serious thing that need separate attention, but those in the peaceful secession movements are no less serious - just equally serious about avoiding bloodshed.Professor Storyteller (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Anything like the Quebecois Movement should be taken seriously as a secessionist movment: liturature, numbers, percents, sustained, territory ... Louisiana officially recognizes both English and French Languages, and Code Napoleon (NOT English Common Law) is the basis for all state law, state schools and state troopers ... have any sought to apply for US statehood since the end of the draft?
 * Tests of citizenship probably merit a section in each discussion. In the Confederate Congress, elected representatives from North Carolina, Alabama and Missouri who had voted for secession in their respective state conventions were denied seats on CSA Constitutional grounds that they had been born on foreign (northern US) soil. As I recall, a restored Hawaiian pre-annexation government at the time of Queen Lili would require two full blooded Hawaiian parents for citizenship and the franchise. Those with any African blood were once not allowed to vote in Cherokee government elections according to a federal court ruling, since the Cherokee never admitted slaves as full tribal members (whereas Crees and Seminoles did with white and black). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "We're never going to allow the Florida Keys to get polluted," Russo said. "It's just not going to happen." "We've seceded once and we can do it again," ...  In this recent article] a FL Keys citizen threatens to secede again, ala Conch, so given it's high profile already, any such organized effort obviously would get more publicity. Again, serious is what is notable, not what we may personally think is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To the VirginiaHistorian - I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if any new States using the Napoleonic Code or a bilingual approach have applied for statehood since the peacetime draft ended in the 1970s?  Also, remember that most Amerindian nations/tribes within the USA (domestic dependent sovereigties) today approach their legal recordations and official actions through bilingualism, and many use non-European or métis cultural practices for their versions of common law, though the vast majority are not attempting or advocating secession.


 * I did not know that about the citizenship requirements in the CSA - thanks! As for Hawaiian restoration efforts, as I understand it there are at least two active efforts underway, both of which are distinct from a separate secession movement that does not seek kingdom restoration or focus on native Hawaiian issues, and that their approach on the blood quantum question differs.


 * A small note of correction - the Cherokee Nation today is indeed struggling with a difficult point of conflict between civil rights and the reality of Amerindian tribal nations as sovereignties in their own right, though domestic and dependent. That regrettable decision, as I understand it, came from the tribe's own voters.


 * Carolmooredc - That's an interesting quote and an interesting article. I note that the author of the article spun the issue that triggered then Conch movement in a way that made it sound quasi-ridiculous - "a highway problem," when in fact it was the very seriously disturbing fact that the US Border Patrol set up a checkpoint between the Keys and the mainland - effectively implying the American border was somewhere on that highway and thus somehow did not embrace the Keys.


 * That having been said, the questions I would have is this - was Russo, vice chairman of the oil slick response issue, affiliated with the Conch Republic in the 1980s during the original incident, or is he a resident without prior affiliations restarted the movement? Does he speak for the rest of those in that movement, or is he starting a new parallel movement - splintering in secessionist groups is certainly not unheard of.  Finally - is he being serious, or will this end with stale French bread being broken over the head of someone dressed as a US Navy admiral, like last time?


 * That's the issue that makes this difficult - deciding who is seriously considering secession, deciding whether it's one person alone with no real prospects (like the infamous apartment microstate of a few years back) or one person alone with real effect, like the Principality of Sealand in or near the waters of the UK or the Hutt River Principality that Australia claims is still within its boundaries (when they're not recognizing that they can't/won't tax it). The Wikipedia notability guidelines don't seem to offer the granularity of guidance we need - how do we decide what's notable?  I'm not being rhetorical - I'm honestly not sure.Professor Storyteller (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously each case is different. The original Conch Republic is notable enough for a sentence. The above example is not, unless either one person got a LOT of WP:RS publicity for the idea or a group got sufficient amount. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So you would see the best solution as a quest for consensus from editors on each case as it arises?Professor Storyteller (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the way it usually works when there isn't a very clear violation of policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * TheVirginiaHistorian - does Carolmooredc's solution work for you?Professor Storyteller (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Carolmooredc probably has it right. I like the add-a-couple-of-lines solution. Maybe the catch-all category can be "Filibusters, conspirators and busted", and include Burr and Walker and McKinley ... Below are a couple of day's worth of rumination ...


 * (earlier) ... however, some sort of criteria gives an article direction without a point of view. If one of us finds a secession movement with two or three of our elements, we know to look for additional scholars to expand the article beyond the first references which have come to hand.
 * An example could be Burr’s activity with western settlers and the Spanish Empire. On the one hand, if Thomas Jefferson tries unsuccessfully to hang you for treason three times in federal court for a secessionist, your movement is notable. Should our article include it … even though a failure?


 * I am of divided mind. There is another school of historiography, "Run it up the flag pole and see who salutes." If no one saluted, if there were no people involved beyond direct hirelings, it should not be given the historical weight that involves some number of people homesteading, marrying, trading, voting, fighting (say, two out of five).
 * Every adventuring filibuster does not a secessionist movement make … William Walker is not included … in Nicaragua he tried to establish a slave territory, bankrolled by the same slavery expansionists who funded the Kansas Le Compton crew … should it be in the article?


 * Some scholars seriously interpret the US acquisition of Texas and California in precisely the same secessionist / filibuster light … only those, unlike Walker’s, were successful … of course, that is seeing American expansion from the Latin point of view ... and how about Hawaii's acquisition - refused by Cleveland, enforced by McKinley ... but our article is to be about “secession movements in the US”, not secession movements by or for the US government, money and/or citizens outside the US ...
 * Again, we see Lee anticipating Marylanders flocking to his banners on the first strike north. Misled by the same anti-Lincoln press used by some notable scholars, he found no suppressed reservoir of Confederate manpower there. Election returns the previous year should have given a clue. No people; no movement. Men also vote with their feet.


 * In the case of the anti-pollution folks down the keys, if someone runs the secession banner up the flag pole, does anyone salute? Does anyone migrate there to make a like-minded stand? Any green pro-secessionist newspapers published there? Did a majority on a Green-fusion ticket capture the Monroe County Court House? What laws does the Green-elected County Sherriff enforce? If the federal government prosecutes the anti-pollution agitator repeatedly, that makes it notable, sort of like Aaron Burr. Numbers of people would make it a movement.


 * Now, I sorta lean Green: all flat roofs in Key West should be painted or repainted in up to date reflective white or silver ... never mind "shovel ready" ... and start with all public buildings, schools ... But, with all due respect to free speech in America, we should not be writing it up if it's a one-man press release written on the back of a bar napkin off of (Confederate Secretary of the Navy) Mallory Square, Key West, Florida, with tourists applauding in the sunset background. And, yes I do like Jimmy Buffet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * TheVirginiaHistorian - I see your point on looking for additional scholars, but I think that could fit within Carolmooredc's solution. As to Jefferson and Burr, it's important to remember that the attempted detachment of the American southwest wasn't the only reason Jefferson was trying Burr for treason - bad blood over the 1800 election debacle and Burr's own terrible reputation after Weehawken were equally important.  Besides, Jefferson's actions violated the Constitution's statements on treason, which is why Marshall stopped it.  The issue of secession really wasn't at the fore as much as deciding that the presdient was not constitutionally allowed to define treason as he saw fit.


 * I think the flagpole metaphor you're using centered on the imagined community idea of Benedict Anderson's, which in turn animates and draws force from the idea of nation-building as an ongoing generational process. Each new generation has to learn to see people in a specific polity as part of an imagined community - it doesn't necessarily come naturally - but as regards seccessionist movements, I think youre looking for indications of larger support.  That could be an important part of our case-by-case decisions.


 * Walker ran into trouble Austin et al didn't face in Texas because of the very serious problems New Spain and Mexico had had in holding the northern reaches of their claims against powerful indigineous peoples, something that wasn't a factor in Central America. California is a whole different business, as its republic was almost certainly just an intermediate stage by Americans seeking direct annexation - whereas Texas and (its seems) Walker sought to make entirely new nations.  Texas only changed its mind when funding its defense against attempts at reconquest from Mexico and other parts of the nation-state game proved too costly and the debt too burdensome.  Hawaii was bascially a naked land grab - something that animated President Cleveland's refusal to support it as well as the apologies the US governmetn formally issued a century later.


 * True point about Maryland - though I think if the Lost Order had not been lost, we might be approaching that whole history differently today - and perhaps from different nations.


 * That's a good question on the Keys - I don't see any evidence of stirrings beyond the existing Conch tourism push and the individual in the article identified as Russo. More support would be crucial to deciding whether or not to include it.


 * Thanks for your thoughts - I think we are at a consensus on how to approach this.Professor Storyteller (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii
I find all things Hawaiian fascinating. There is a substantial move, not only among certain Hawaiian natives and their progeny, but a wide base of support among the general population tolerating separatist, secessionist? movement. At least for the territory of one island, or so I've been told.

When the sugar plantation haolis tried to take over at first, Queen Lili petitioned President Cleveland and was successful. Cleveland basically said that a constitutional monarchy with a widely based franchise electing a parliament on the British model was the kind of government the US supported in the world.
 * The second time, Queen Lili petitioned President McKinley, there must be some mistake. He, flushed with the triumph of the Spanish American War, basically said, another source of sugar revenue along with Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, and a mid-Pacific coaling station, was good for America (see Mahan's "The Influence of Seapower"). I'm not sure who voted for what under each regime. I think it flip-flopped.

Well, once, you bought a house in Hawaii, and the 50-year rental agreement for the property under it transferred. None of the property owners sold real estate under the structure, regardless of ethnicity. Some Hawaiian natives (__% by DNA) would like communal ownership of land. This is a legal question most residents of most states never face.
 * Though residents of Bath County, Virginia, once could obtain title to the property under their house, but one family then maintained ownership of a four-foot right-of-way between every parcel, so there could be no consolidation without family permission. I think that this was in the 19th Century sometime.

Women should have the same rights, equal to, and enforceable, as men. Was it one or two monarchs before Queen Lili where women who ate pork were executed? Pork was for men at luau. period. There was no Southern (Dixie) American Thanksgiving tradition of turkey and ham. The Professor mentioned two separate Hawaiian movements.
 * We should consider a section on Hawaii, or a couple lines for the two movements under a section of "Movements for Ethnic-based polities". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I followed the Hawaiian secessionist movements through the 1990s and the past decade (the aughts?), and I do recall the efforts to have a single island decades a restored "Kingdom of Hawaii," building on the momentum the apology and acknowledgments of illegality produced. As late as 2007, I saw efforts for restoration of the Hawaiian constitutional monarchy coming from two separate groups - one of which is well-organized enough to carry out peaceful takeovers of the historic palace.  I also saw movement through the aughts for a state-wide secession that was unconnected to the restoration movement or ethnicity, focused instead on the same sort of state secession issues that animate similar movements in Alaska - even down to using the same claims about UN requirements for territorial status votes that the AIP had front-and-center in the late 1990s.


 * As I recall, the final "vote" on whether or not Hawaii was going to "ask" to be made an American territory involved shiploads of US Marines off-loading to bulk up the pro-American numbers. I don't believe Cleveland actually stopped the annexation, but merely protested and refused to assent to it - this was in the period after President Andrew Johnson and before President Theodore Roosevelt when occupants of the White House interpreted their powers to narrowly as to become little more than figureheads for the Congressional corruption of the Gilded Age.  The actions taken by McKinley with Mahan in mind are what the US government apologized for in the 1990s.  However, the SCOTUS' odd recent doctrine as of the 1980s, in which "cultural landmarks" cannot be undone even if they are the fruit of a poisoned legal tree, most likely will prevent any constitutional settlement that separates any part of Hawaii from America.  Texas v. White offers the constitutional option of "Consent of the States" for secession efforts, but no one has any idea if that means just a simple majority vote of Congress, unanimous consent from the Senate, or majority or unanimous decisions from all 49 other State legislatures.  Either way, with support for secession in Hawaii well below the majority line, and over 75% of the American people opposing secession for any part of the USA, it appears unlikely to happy in the near future.


 * I have to say I don't fully agree that most residents of most states don't face communal ownership questions - many of us who are Native American/Amerindian face communal land ownership questions all the time, and we are present in every state. I myself prefer individual land ownership, as is characteristic in my part of our tribe, but that doesn't mean I have that option for communal land.  My communal land issues are not large, but they are time consuming - and it's something that takes an entirely different perspective than that of the majority American consensus.


 * I also agree that women and men should have equal rights.


 * I almost agreed with you on expanding the very short Hawaii section in this article, but a quick perusal of the article linked in that section shows a tremendous amount of debate, discussion, and emotion, especially on the question of ethnicity and the restoration movement. I wonder if it might not be better to let that article stand and resolve its various issues on its own, without dragging too much of that into our article other than a link for the curious.Professor Storyteller (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

General reorganization, without loss of material
Here is an article outline that I would like to put on the table. The basic idea would be to keep all text in tact, and reorganize. In the exercise, I noticed the omission of the Whisky Rebellion...

Secession in the United States
 * Natural right of revolution versus right of secession
 * Secession and the United States Constitution
 * Antebellum American political and legal views
 * Supreme Court Rulings


 * Belligerent secession
 * American Revolution - 1775
 * Texas secession from Mexico -
 * California secession from Mexico
 * Commonwealth of the Philippines
 * Confederate States of America
 * West Virginia


 * Political secession
 * Regional
 * New England Federalists and Hartford Convention
 * Pacific Northwest
 * 
 * Abolitionists
 * Neo-Confederate Movements
 * Burlington Declaration 2006,2007
 * Pacific Northwest


 * State secession
 * South Carolina
 * nullification
 * Third Palmetto Republic
 * Alaska – 2006
 * Georgia – 2009
 * Texas – 1990s
 * Vermont – 2004
 * Washington State - 2004
 * Montana – 2007
 * ”Others”


 * Local secession (consolidate city secession, county secession, and portions of 51st state movements)
 * Florida – Conch 1982
 * New York –
 * Staten Island – 1993
 * Long Island – 2008
 * California –
 * San Fernando Valley – 2002
 * Southern California – 1965
 * ”Superior” (MI, WI, MN) 1858 onward
 * Massachusetts Marthas’ Vinyard, Nantucket - 1977
 * ”Others”


 * Ethnic and national secession
 * Hawaii -
 * Lakota people – 2008
 * ”Others”
 * TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea. At present the article is arranged chronologicaly and I think it should stay that way. The circumstatnces that led to the Civil War (the only real attempt at secession) were present at the beginning and there is a natural flow of events that is the way this history is virtually always treated.

I also don't believe the category "belligerant secession" is appropriate. Other than the CSA situation, most historians do not treat the other events as secessions. At best, for example, it is a minority view that the American Revolution was secession -- it is most often evoked as such by fringe neo-confederates trying to justify the rebel position in the Civil War.

Secession as a serious policy option died with the Civil War and it would be extremely misleading misleading to fail to have a clear line of demarcation separating the antebellum from the postbellum periods. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with North Shoreman, except about the "serious option" part which is a WP:Soapbox I don't want to start on. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * TheVirginiaHistorian - I like the idea, though if consensus coalasces around this change I might want to move some of the categories around. One note - the Whiskey Rebellion was a brief insurrection having to do with excise taxes necessary to establish the credit of the United States on international markets.  The insurrectionists were attempting to change these policies, but were not secessionists.  There were discussions of departure from the union on the western frontier through the early Republic period, until the west bank of the Mississippi and New Orleans passed into American hands and ended the lure of joining the Spanish empire, but this was a separate issue.


 * Tom (North Shoreman) - Speaking as a practicing historian, I have to disagree with your assertion on how history is treated, as the natural flow of events is not always the way history is approached. Connections, commonalities, and non-chronological groupings are just as common as organizing principles, with the focus on change over time within those groupings.  Consequently, I think breaking this list out into categories might be a good idea.


 * I also have to disagree on the American Revolution. Most historians do in fact see it as a form of belligerent secession from the British Empire - after the Declaration was signed, of course - while also viewing it as a political, social, and even cultural revolution.  Secession was only a part of the change created by the Revolution, but it was an indispensable part.


 * I do agree with you - and disagree with CarolMooreDC - on secession not be a serious policy option since the Civil War, but I would note that only a minority of Americans believed unilateral state secession was a serious policy option even before the Civil War. As early as the mid-1810s, Americans reacted to false reports about secession in the Hartford Convention with accusations of treason toward the Federalist Party.  While a delineation between antebellum and postbellum periods is important, it is not a clear line between acceptance and rejection of unlilateral state secession.Professor Storyteller (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are certainly cases where a topical approach is used. However with regards to the history of secession in the United States, the vast majority that cover the entire antebellum period  or the last few decades do so in chronological order. As an historian you should know that, but I will be glad to provide a list if necessary.  I find it very necessary for you to provide examples where historians use your approach.  It seems such an approach is used by political scientists (i.e. see the article Secession) but this article IMO should stick with the common historical approach.


 * As far as the American Revolution, I don't think that I've ever seen historians such as Wood, Middlekauff, Maier, Black, Ellis, etc use the word secession in their works. Nor can I think of any biographer of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Henry, Madison, etc. that use the word.  Who exactly are the historians that place any significant emphasis on the concept of secession in connection with the American Revolution?  We've had this debate on several American Revolution related articles and there was never anything close to a consensus to discuss secession in those articles -- we don'y need this article to be a POV fork.


 * You're probably right that only a minority of antebellum Americans saw secession as a legitimate alternative, but it was still during this time a significant political alternative. Elizabet Varon in her recent work "Disunion!" focuses specifically on how both the threat of secession and, possibly more imporatant, the labelling of your opponents as secessionists was thoroughly integrated into the political discourse. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom (North Shoreman) - [Professor Storyteller Redacting His Own Comments] - Okay, with a lovely Thanksgiving Dinner in the review mirror, I was able to take a bit more time to reread our exchange and determine that I misunderstood your comments and you misunderstood my comments. In my description of history using non-chronological formatting, including topical organization, I was referencing historiography as a whole to counter what I wrongly believed was your assertion that all history is almost always presented with a natural flow of events.  Basically, I missed your use of the word "this."  Since we agree that history is not almost always chronological in its presentation, I believe we are on the same page.


 * As to secession, TheVirginiaHistorian beat me to the punch with good examples of historians placing emphasis on secession in connection with the American Revolution. The fact of the matter is that the thirteen colonies seperated politically from the Empire to make something new - which is secession in its most basic format - though, as I noted above, that fact is often lost in the discussion of the more significant revolutions in society, culture, and politics associated with the separation.  America is not the only successful secession from the British Empire, and secession is not the most important element of the American Revolution, but both are undeniably true.


 * Antebellum Americans did in fact use secession, and the labelling of one's opponents as such, as a way to make political hay - but of course postbellum Americans do the same, as recently as 2009 - see the commentary from Governor Perry, who was almost certainly merely trying to manipulate sentiments for his primary fight. Secession is not dead in politis - just firmly out of bounds constitutionally.Professor Storyteller (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, when you say we're on the same page, does that mean that you agree that the article should remain chronologically arranged?


 * I totally disagree that The VirginiaHistorian provided good examples of historians placing emphasis on secession in connection with the American Revolution. He provided one instance where Joesph Ellis used the word, but I'm not sure how that fits within the context of the entire work.  You both seem to be arguing that ALL separations of one group or gegraphical era are secessions -- in other words revolution = separation.


 * However, this article is about secession in the United States. In this context, as the article shows, there is a clear distinction between the individual natural right of revolution (the basis for the Declaration of Independence and the AR) and an alleged legal right of state secession that is based on the nature of the union created under the Constitution.  The former case is based on rights held by all human beings, the latter based on the circumstances specific to the United States under the Constitution.


 * Calhoun, the most articulate spokesman for the Southern view of secession, specifically rejected the concept of natural law.  He claimed that people never existed in the pure state of nature where natural law originated, but always lived in organized communities.  Lincoln and others argued that the 'all men are created equal" phrase from the DOI was a significant statement that meant what it said, despite the fact that it was written by slaveholders.   Southerners in the world of 1860 where slavery was increasingly recognized as an evil institution could not base their rebellion on natural rights when their society was so clearly based on the denial of natural rights to a sizeable portion of its population.


 * Bottom line -- historians writing about the origins of the American Revolution RARELY use the word secession while historians writing about the Civil War ALWAYS use the word. As far as Texas, historians generally treat it as a revolution (on the model of the AR) rather than a CSA type secession.  With respect to California, the very brief history of the Big Bear republic notwithstanding, this was really about a war of conquest by the U.S.


 * Political blunders by Governor Perry and the platforms of isolated fringe groups do not mean secession is alive and well. You appear to be equating a current political oddity with the political force that led to four years of civil war.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm still undecided about the organization of the article. I merely meant that we agreed about the nature of history as a discipline and its presentation, the point I had mistakenly thought we disagreed on.

Actually, I'm not arguing that all revolution equal secession. I am arguing that a part of a Westphalian polity seperating itself with a formal process of European-descent legal communication and/or belligerent conflict from the remainder of that polity constitutes secession. You seem to be arguing for a definition of secession restricted specifically to its use in antebellum American politics and law, which is overly narrow except with specific sub-specialities of historical writing - and even then I disagree with the use of the word in this way.

The Declaration of Independence asserts a series of Lockean concepts, including those you articulate, but it is unique within American political thought and not even particularly consistent with British political thought at the time it was written. As much as we Americans cherish and adore the Declaration of Independence, its theories of natural rights of individuals and Lockean rhetoric do not disguise that it is a statement of separation from the polity of the British Empire - in other words, secession in all but the narrowest definition of the term. It is also a revolutionary document setting into motion extraordinary changes in the society, culture, and politics of America - but only in conjunction with this separation of a part of a polity to become a whole polity in and of itself. Secession, in a word. Unilateral state secession from the United States of America today is unconstitutional as articulated in Texas v. White because a single State does not represent the will of the American people as a whole, and they are the final sovereign authority under the Constitution. It is not in conflict with or separate from the Declaration - it is the fulfillment of that revolutionary promise, that the sovereign authority not be a monarch or a government, but rather the people of the nation as a whole. The two are inseparably intertwined.

Bottom line - you cannot separate the American Revolution and its revolutionary political doctrines from the concept of the people as a whole, or the position taken by Lincoln with regards to the Union, which was articulated in Texas v. White. The American Revolution was revolution in its purest form, and secession in its clearest form. The attempted secessions of the southern States in 1860 and 1861 were not revolutionary, as they were intended to conserve an institution against the will of the American people empowered by the American Revolution, and they were not constitutional, as they failed to secure the assent of the American people as a whole to their departure. Texas is a clear case of secession from Mexico to preserve the institution of slavery using the rhetoric of the American Revolution without any real revolutionary action or effect.

On California, you and I agree.

I believe a solid case can be made that the specific movement Governor Perry may have been courting represents a threat of equal magnitude to that seen in America in the final decades before the Civil War. But that is a definitely a discussion we need to adjourn to my talk page or yours, for it is too far afield from our current topic.Professor Storyteller (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

sources for emperial secession.
North Shore Tom as it that historians do not see the creation of the US as secession from the British Empire. He gives us Wood, Middlekauff, Maier, Black, Ellis, etc.
 * Now in all of this discussion, one of the advantages in history over political science or sociology is that something can be given to the common sense meaning of the word "secession", 'the act of withdrawing from a political union'.
 * Using online sources, [so that we can verify before football games, Happy Thanksgiving Carol, Tom, Professor, you make my life richer], we've got:
 * a. Bailyn, "Ideological Origins", p.76 "colonists leaving England", p.143 "final separation".
 * b. Wood, "The Purpose of the Past", p.185 Americans wanted to "justify legally their break from the Crown".
 * c. Ellis, " American Creation", p.38, "more than a rationale for secession from the British Empire".

more later TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Happy Thanksgiving to you as well!Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid we are never going to see "secession" in anything Wood has written. He is very careful in his speech. "Secession" as commonly used in Americn idiomatic expression is taken to mean the Civil War. This, in the same way if you say, "Declaration" it is taken to mean "Declaration of Independence" and not 'Declaration of the Rights of Man', or 'Declaration of Sentiments'.
 * I met Woods, however briefly, at a dinner-lecture at Anderson House some years back. I was younger and very much more eager then, I'm afraid I sort of ambushed him in the buffet line. He was very careful to only speak to the subject of the lecture. He did the same during the question and answer. Some tried to get him off topic, but he would only speak to his historical period, and said so. My guess is that it had to do with the integrity of his subject.
 * This is related to North Shore Tom's earlier point about the importance of chronology, which is true, even if I still want to use a topical organization for the purposes of the article outline. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

the outline - critiques considered
Lets recap the outline proposed, quickly sorted, still needs editing, and look at the critiques.
 * I. Definition.
 * a. Declaration
 * b. Constitution
 * c. Antebellum views
 * d. Supreme Court
 * II. Belligerent secession movements
 * Sustained organized violence, in chronological order
 * III. Political secession movements
 * a. regional – chronologically
 * b. states – chronologically
 * c. localities – chronologically
 * IV. Ethnic and national secession movements
 * Based on other than geographic residence, chronologically.

1. The EXISTING article’s chronology is faulty. West Virginia does not come before Texas separation from Mexico. Texas in 2009 is not before Vermont in 2004.
 * However, improving can be done on this draft outline. See recap above, version 2.0.

2. A critical editor suggests “most historians” do not view the American Revolution as secession. If it was not secession, “the act of withdrawing from a political union”, how may it be characterized?
 * George Bancroft, the LAND made us do it apart from Empire? Frederick Jackson Turner, the FRONTIER made us do it apart from the Atlantic? Quote scholarly sources, I’ll admit them. But let’s include some later interpretation as well.

3. The EXISTING article has no “clear line of demarcation” between antebellum and post-bellum chronology. The listings have been incrementally expanded; periodically the add-ons should be comprehensively organized. The outline proposes a beginning.
 * The outline would, in fact, place recent movements since the Civil War, as “political” or “ethnic/national”, which IS a clear demarcation from belligerency and other militant antebellum movements, and NOT “misleading” as one critical editor first took it.

4. How can the outline be “neo-Confederate”? It acknowledges the Philippines “secessionist” movement as belligerent, 1898-1902. One editor claims that unnamed scholars do not acknowledge anyone after the Confederacy as being “serious” in their intent to secede.
 * WHO dismisses Aguinaldo’s effort at secession and Philippines independence as, Not serious? HOW is his understanding of the Declaration, for instance, inferior to that of Jefferson Davis, exactly?
 * Is Aguinaldo inferior to Davis because 25,000 dead does not overmatch 600,000? If its numbers only,the entire premise of this piece as a separate article is in question.

5. Nothing in this outline proposal changes any existing interpretation into a neo-Confederate rant. There is a suggestion to expand in the Philippines Insurrection and the Whisky Rebellion. Both need to be addressed with care. But no neo-Confederate POV lurks in categories that include Asians, Polynesians and Amerindians as equally serious as whites and their secession movements.
 * If the history of this article says we need to avoid this clarity as unwanted, distracting, debilitating controversy to the online health of the piece, then I yield to experience of long time editors; but not for misunderstandings, misapprehensions, or mischaracterizations.

I hope this clears up the intent a little. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've addressed most of this above, but I will address two points here. Here is the ONLY SENTENCE in which I use the word "neo-confederate": At best, for example, it is a minority view that the American Revolution was secession -- it is most often evoked as such by fringe neo-confederates trying to justify the rebel position in the Civil War.  Your attempt to equate this as a general attack on all aspects of your outline is, IMO, bizarre.


 * As for Aguinaldo, he was certainly serious, but I am not aware of any statements by him in which he declared he was seceding from the United States. Nor am I aware of any historians of that war who make that claim. I was able to write a graduate level paper on aspects of the Philippine War without ever using the word "secession" or, to the best of my recollection, find it so referenced in the primary or secondary sources that I encountered.  Using your very broad definition of secession, you might as well claim every Indian war that the U.S. was involved with was actually about secession.


 * Elsewhere you write, I'm afraid we are never going to see "secession" in anything Wood has written. He is very careful in his speech. I find that statement right on point -- we do need to be "very careful" in our writing and present the concept of secession as it is actually used by historians of the United States.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * TheVirginiaHistorian - Most who have spoken to Wood agree, and his guest lectures have been equally on message.


 * Tom (North Shoreman) - You are correct in that we must be careful in our writing and our presentation of the concepts of history. However, you are too narrow in your definition of the term secession if you wish to restrict it simply to political usages in antebellum America with regards to the run-up to the Civil War, as I've outlined above.Professor Storyteller (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your sectioning by "Belligerent secession movements" vs. "Political secession movements" is extremely WP:Original research (plead read policy if you have not done so). Only if you can prove that several WP:RS have made that distinction using those exact words (or some using those exact words and some using obvious synonyms) can you even suggest doing so, without it being suspected you are just imposing your own POV. I haven't seen that.  As for the other discussions, bottom line is if one or especially more WP:RS describe an incident as secession, that's the way it can be described here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How about putting the four sections defining Secession together (Declaration, Constitution, Antebellum and Supreme Court). Then North Shore Tom's chronological order?
 * I will defer on the outline's distinction between a shooting war sustained in defeats and bloodshed, and filing a law suit which is abandoned with an adverse ruling. I will look for several WP:RS to back me up as you suggest. A couple of years ago, I tried to point out Locke condemned rebellion against authority, but championed self-defense of individual rights (we can read it online, searching for "rebellion".) It too was tossed for POV.
 * This process is actually what makes Wikipedia fun. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

on the neo-confederate uses of history
North Shore Tom, thank you for withdrawing any implication that my work is neo-Confederate. I mistook your ONE sentence to be a ‘guilt by association’ tactic. I see no equivalence in the Declaration and Secession, no long train of abuses over twenty years. The popular vote in the 1860 election was a divided pro-union majority of 85%. Over time, numbers would tell. And this idea of democracy based on equal rights would add to the Union a division’s worth each of Irish, German, African-American and Canadian volunteers. And Englishmen would buy up US Treasury Notes, not CSA. Cousin Ludwell Johnson called them all, ‘Lincoln’s Mercenaries’; he was aghast that anyone could take the country, or equality, so seriously. I differed, and disrupted a family Thanksgiving in the 60s. This has been a struggle all my adult life. I’m sorry that you, in turn, felt misrepresented. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First, please keep your remarks in same line of indentations, since progressively moving them over makes editors think that other editors have commented without leaving a signature line.
 * Second "I see no equivalence in the Declaration and Secession," is your opinion. But wikipedia editing is based on what WP:Reliable sources. Some do, some don't. We reflect both - and any other -views, if they are made by sufficient WP:Reliable sources. Wikipedia is fun, but it's also important to follow rules, including especially about "WP:SOAPBOX" since we all don't have a lot of time to read others' opinions on subject matter, so we must stick to discussions of what sources say about them. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Philippine Insurrection NOT Indian wars.
The Philippine Insurrection can be distinguished from “every Indian war” resisting US expansion. It was secession as a nation-state in the Enlightenment tradition.

Plains Indian Wars were not ‘secession’, but opposition to US expansion or corrupt reservations. Wars for tribal survival included the Comanche. Sherman and Sheridan defeated them. Or, rather, undefeated, the Comanche starved (Fehrenbach). Something like that policy would later embarrass US General Jacob “Howling Wilderness” Smith in the Philippines (Kramer).

The intellectual history of the Philippine Insurrection began with the mid-1700s Spanish Liberals. The reforms of the 1868 Spanish Revolution made the tenure of Spanish Gov-Gen. Torre uniquely admired. It was to flower with Jose Rizal through travels, his studies in Spain, France and Germany, his writing and national service. T. Roosevelt named him “the greatest genius and most revered of [P.I.] patriots” (A.Craig, P.Kramer).

Led by Bonifacio, Luna, Aguinaldo, the Philippine Insurrection was based on a political philosophy of expanded democratic inclusion and republican independence. It drew from Spanish, Cuban and American thought (S.C.Miller, Chaput). The 1898 Malolos Constitution held citizens to be, “all persons born in the Philippine territory” with freedom of religion.

The P.I. Insurrection was akin to the independence sought in the Confederacy’s Great Rebellion. But the P.I. had constitutions of the Enlightenment without slavery. It belongs in ‘secession in the US’ in that it advanced the Enlightenment tradition, sought independence from the US, and it was ultimately successful, lawfully endorsed by the US Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

'belligerent secession' not invented here
Editors suggest that all secession is equal, and that any distinguishing categories among them, in say, headers, is a wiki disallowed ‘point of view’ (POV).

They surmise that fighting for a cause, for a country, for one’s fellows, has no distinction in academia to summary cloture resolutions to DO nothing. I am to find ‘several scholars’ to persuade the assertion that there may be such a thing as “belligerent secession” so as to demonstrate that it is not a ‘clear POV’. The clear assumption is that there can be no encyclopedic ‘scholarly’ distinction between the Hartford Convention and the Confederacy allowed in Wikipedia.

But there are ‘several’ scholarly uses of the distinction, whether by rhetoric, political science, diplomacy or history.

Belligerent status in a secession movement requires at least (a) combat, (b) territorial control, (c) declaration of independence and (d) some sort of recognition by the government (E.Allison & R.K.Goldman). It is different from riots, and requires political control besides military activity. In the case of the US, Lincoln could not Constitutionally issue the Emancipation Proclamation under presidential war powers without an ongoing rebellion as recognized by the US government (R.Weigley ).

Belligerent status of a secession movement brings about a legal standing which in turn brings international law into play. The Confederacy, for instance, was recognized as a belligerent by Britain, Spain and Brazil (US State Dept, E.Goldstein). Lincoln conducted a policy of prisoner exchange as though the Confederacy were a belligerent in this and other instances(Gary Wills TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)).

There is such a thing as belligerent secession, without POV. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the names of the relevant books, page numbers, or quotations to verify what you say. And are they of sufficient stature or their analysis so important that it really should dictate how to organize this article? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you provide dates on the works in question to evaluate whether or not this changed during the wave of secessions in the 1990s? So many of the changes in the old Soviet empire did not involve hostilities that I wonder if the definitions have changed.  Also, side note - recognition as a belligerent is a Geneva Convention nod, not recognition as a polity - though depending on one's belligerent success, one might qualify as a Montevideo Convention polity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Storyteller (talk • contribs) 04:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

From DC Carol, find an authoritative way to organize this article, pick one. (And, on Pearl Harbor Day, 'verify what you say', with authority, indeed.) From the Professor, range into political science, international law, to inform historical treatment, in line with his earlier discussion with North Shore Tom. The encouragement to provide pagination references is the Wiki dictum, "be bold", edit, and then we can discuss it. I’m a Meyer’s Briggs INTJ, sort of reverse flow from that, deductive versus inductive, discussion before edit. In process (IBM: Think). more later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are about what sources say that can be verified by other editors and readers. And one can be bold in putting in improperly referenced materials and others can boldly revert it for further discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To complete the D of I thought
In the “Declaration” section, I add the thought of two scholars of the American Declaration of Independence, each from a different intellectual tradition, one published at the University Press of Kentucky, the other published at the University of Massachusetts Press.

The balanced reasoning of Enlightenment thinkers required consideration of extremes to arrive at a golden mean of moderation (once, even recently, a positive thing to be sought after). There are abuses of power, there are abuses of liberty. There are occasions of action such as rebellion, secession, revolution, and those of prudence, such as tradition, toleration and long-suffering.

This edit provides for the “on the other hand” piece which the Founders set up to find the moderate, self-defense of rights. Gordon S. Wood has been admitted as a scholarly authority previously by editors on this page. The Library of Congress historian continues to connect the dots and publish on the LOC webpage; I propose to admit that source as scholarly.

It is, of course, other than the take by the overwhelming preponderance of acknowledged Lost Cause scholars who, in their rush to justify a partial past, anachronistically present only half the thought. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * While I'm not up to really exploring the new material, I do note that this needs clarification: right to revolution was immediately followed with the observation that long practiced injustice is tolerated until serious... Who "observed" this? It's just too free floating. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The South did NOT use the right of revolution as their justification for secession. Rjensen (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

SOME Confederates and the 'Right to Revolution"
Well, hardly never. If the interpretation of ‘right of revolution’ holds up over a 150 year period of time, there may be something to it. All four sources below all agree that SOME in the Confederacy justified their enterprise by ‘right of revolution’.


 * (a) Participants at the time (Vice President Alexander Stephens, 1861),
 * (b) Confederate leaders in retrospective self-justification (Jefferson Davis, 1881),
 * (c) scholars in the late 20th Century (Robert Durden at Duke, 1978) and
 * (d) those in the 21st (William Miller at UVA, 2008)

--Alexander Stephens in his Cornerstone Speech 1861, declared, “ … we are passing through one of the greatest ‘’revolutions’’ in the annals of the world.”

--Jefferson Davis in “Rise and Fall of the Confederate government”, (1881 p.615) quoting his own Senate speech Jan 10, 1861, … “and now, after we have given you a reasonable time … having exhausted all other means, we may declare the association to be broken up, and we may go into an act of ‘’revolution’’

--Robert F. Durden at Duke University, wrote in “The American Revolution as Seen by Southerners in 1861” in ‘Louisiana History’, (Winter 1978, p.33), … many persons, first as Southerners and then as Confederates, claimed the ‘’Revolution’’ as the noble precedent for their own struggle for liberty and national independence … In hallowed phrases about the ‘unalienable rights’ of men …they defended their efforts to resist what they called “northern tyranny” and to establish a new Southern nation.

--William Lee Miller in ‘President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman’ (2008 p.148), “Others went ahead and embraced the argument of ‘’revolution’’, singing a “Southern Marseillaise” and accepting the designation of Henry Wise of Virginia as the “Danton” of secession”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Potter explains that while the Southerners for a while talked about the right of revolution, they decided not to use it and instead to rely on the right of secession (a states right). The impending crisis, 1848-1861 (1976) by David Potter p 483 Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TheVirginiaHistorian - Three things to be wary of in these sources on Confederate use of the term "right to revolution." The first is basic contemporary political manipulation.  The southern states were trying to secede to protect elements of their society from change - the literal, non-ideological meaning of the term "conservative" (which does *not* link to modern conservatives, who seek to "conserve" very different elements of today's society).  Yet they existed in a cultural tradition that took great pride in the American Revolution, and they desperately needed to align their movement with that tradition to mobilize their society for the sacrifices the war would entail.  To that end, public utterances by the CS President and Vice President during the war have to be looked at as political manipulation more than actual views.


 * As you noted, retrospective self-justification. By 1881, Reconstruction had collapsed under the weight of the shared racism of northern and southern society, and frustrations over the 1876 election crisis had changed many Americans' views of the entire preceding twenty years.  "President" Davis thus could with confidence attempt to justify himself by arrogating the idea of revolution to his very traditionalist movement without the howls of derision that might have provoked in the 1860s.


 * Durden and Miller are using the term revolution in quotes for a specific reason - as one can see especially in the Miller quote, the southerners are conflating revolution and secession. In much the same way some historians today see the American Revolution as little more than a war for independence and separation - though others, as we have noted, have identified the revolutionary nature of the social and cultural changes it brought - southerners at the time are using "revolution" in the sense they spoke of "American Revolution" - not social change and cultural transformation, but simple political separation.


 * While I don't pretend to have a full grasp on every southerner's inner convictions, the evidence I've studied over the last twenty years has convinced me that the overwhelming majority of those fighting for and leading the CSA were deliberately resisting what they feared most - a social and cultural revolution of abolition imposed by a powerful federal government dominated by the demographically larger northern culture. Ironically, the war they started brought about the very revolutionary change they feared.Professor Storyteller (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This might be an interesting thread to tease out. The Professor points out that Confederate references to the American Revolution should be set in the context of political manipulation early on (before the upper South is seceded?), pretending a tradition of individual liberty. Rjensen uses Potter to explain a justification of the Confederacy based on states rights, (not human rights?). That rings true from what I remember from Calhoun's 'Disquisition'. Calhoun makes perfect sense until you reflect on his premis and determine that in the Enlightenment tradition, only people have rights, not derivative legal fictions. (I mean 'fiction' only in a respectful, technically legal sense.)


 * Although, to another of The Professor's points, I'd like to draw a big distinction between the leadership of the CSA and those fighting for it. Unlike leadership, those fighting referred to a "Rich man's war, poor man's fight." Or, for another example, Cleburne's Memorial of the Army of Tennessee called for slave emancipation following military service, just as Southern states once relied upon to attain independence in the American Revolution. (there's that word again.)


 * Okay, the significance of the 'Right of Revolution' for a general article is not central, it's a subsub-section if Jrensen relents. My impression is that (a) slave-holders wanted state-sponsored slavery, regardless of the cost to the South, but (b) soldiers wanted independence, no matter what it took from the rich. After The War, there were remarkable instances of bi-racial cooperation in Reconstruction until the color line was drawn, as The Professor reminds us.


 * I've been re-reading Sean Wilentz, 'The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincon'. Gone to look up Potter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wilentz is good but Potter is very good--the best treatment in my opinion. Don't miss Allan Nevins, Ordeal of the Union (4 vol 1947-50). Rjensen (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * TheVirginiaHistorian - I agree that there is a sharp and clear distinction between the leaders of the CSA and those fighting for it - and those sacrificing on the home front, I would add. However, even the ordinary soldiers and their families on the home fronts were not fighting for or anticipating radical social or cultural change.  They were fighting for political change - independence through secession.  They were, however, united with their leaders in the fight to prevent changes to the crucial racial lines and structures of the antebellum south.  Ordinary southerners lucky enough to be considered white were just as committed to the racist underpinnings of their society and its central institution - slavery - as wealthy and powerful southerners, even if the ordinary southerners had never owned slaves and had no expectation that they ever would.  It is crucial, if we are to understand the antebellum south, to understand the vital importance of the racial barriers and enforced inequality all levels of southern society fought and scarified to defend against the revolutionary change of emancipation, enfranchisement, and equality.  The moments where those fighting for the CSA's political independence were prepared to accept dramatic social and cultural change - such as the Confederate Congress' belated attempt to create units filled with black American soldiers in the final weeks of the war in 1865 - were moments of departure so dramatic as to be noteworthy markers of collapse.


 * That in mind, I think that your impressions would be a little more accurate if they were that a) slave owners wanted state-protected slavery, regardless of the cost, and b) soldiers and ordinary southerners at home wanted to preserve the racial barriers and enforced inequalities, while c) both agreed that the best way to achieve this was secession.


 * Remember, while there were remarkable instances of biracial cooperation in Reconstruction, the ultimate form of cooperation that broke Reconstruction and cost black Americans a century of renewed oppression was the consensus of racism between southern whites and northern whites that evolved in the 1870s. That unifying consensus allowed Americans to largely ignore the 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution until black Americans forced change in the 1950s and 1960s.


 * The idea of the "right to revolution" is crucial to understanding ideas around secession across American history, but the only claim to revolution laid by the leaders and ordinary folk of the CSA came with the conflation of "revolution" with "secession."Professor Storyteller (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, all that matters is what the sources say, not what "our impressions" are, so long discussions on what we think about these topics are considered WP:soapbox. That said, various American opinions sourced with WP:RS about the "right to secession" obviously are important to the article. By the way, I wonder if Philippines, Puerto Rico or any other territory not formally incorporated as a state can be seen as seceding. It's more like an anti-colonialist move. Anyway, one of these days I'll clean up some things in this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Carolmooredc - Fair point, though what we're discussing is our impression of sources too numerous to include without really overinflating the discussion.
 * TheVirginiaHistorian - To Carolmooredc's point, let's adjourn the remainder of our discussion to my talk page, if you're amenable to that. It's basically this kind of thing at inordinate length . . . :)
 * Carolmooredc - Unincorporated territories still need Congressional approval to become independent, based on the experiences of the former trust territories in the Pacific. I think that process is pretty well governed by existing law, as opposed to the Texas v White idea for States, which has nothing but that one line in the decision and the related commentary in Bruffy.  I dimly remember the Federated States of Micronesia moving to independence, and I don't recall anyone referring to it as secession, though I'm sure we could check that with existing records.Professor Storyteller (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Revolution::a versus revolution::b

 * No argument, Potter’s ‘Impending Crisis’ treats the Antebellum period, a bedrock start for understanding Confederate secession movement. Nevins’ ‘Ordeal of the Union’ is a sweeping, comprehensive way to understand the United States; he uses ‘revolution’ to describe the abolition of slavery.


 * But just as ‘freedom’ was used differently by the two sides (McPherson, 'Battle Cry of Freedom'), so was ‘revolution’. Confederates used ‘revolution’ to describe their enshrining slavery in the form of an independent democratic republic. Lest we forget, its Constitution read, “No … law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” (Thomas, p.63) And without Jefferson Davis’ threatened veto, the African slave trade would have been reopened by CSA Congress.

Sidebar: Underlying society underpins the political reality regardless of the form: Mexico’s democratic republic had about 10% male participation, U.S. about 80%; Union soldiers went home to vote, Confederates did not, interior lines and all.


 * In “The Confederate Nation” (1979), Emory M. Thomas contributed a volume to the New American Nation Series, edited by Henry Steele Commager and Richard B. Norris. Thomas gives us a narrative of changes in the rebelling states 1861-1865. While describing how the social order of things and politics were much the same before and after the attempt, differences developed in the South DURING the Confederacy.

"The Confederacy was more a nation in June of 1863 than ever before or after. … Two years of war had transformed Southern political and economic institutions, and the Southern people. … Conditioned by war and revolution, that national life differed dramatically from what came before and after. … In terms of their corporate self-concept, most Confederates still believed themselves to be heirs of the American Revolutionary tradition of 1776. … (Thomas, p.221)"

"Public rhetoric and national symbols continually played upon the theme of the Confederacy as the lineal descendent of the American revolutionary process. … innocence by association … Both sought separation and home rule; in each, the goal was liberation, not conquest. … And, as might be expected, there was no universal agreement as to the essence of the Confederate revolution. (Thomas, p.222)"


 * It may be that people talking to one another in a time period conflate meanings of revolution and secession. But something must be allowed for what people said to one another and how they responded then. My point remains, SOME Confederates saw themselves as carrying out a revolution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Enshrining slavery in the constitution did not make the CS Constitution revolutionary - it was already present in the US Constitution, until removed by the 13th Amendment.


 * The first Thomas quote uses the term revolution only in passing, and joins the second quote in claiming that they saw themselves as heirs or descendants of "the American Revolutionary process" (or tradition in the first quote). He then goes on to explicate that as a quest for separation and liberation, presumably in the latter from "tyranny," though the South experience no such thing before the War.  But neither secession nor the removal of outside government is what made the American Revolution a revolution.  Rather, the revolutionary social changes in every town and village that replaced deference and aristocratic pretensions with equality and pretensions of universality are what made up the Spirit of '76.  No such revolutionary change happened in the South, and Thomas is not talking about the American Revolution in that sense - he is showing that Confederates saw themselves as heirs to 1776 simple for separating from the Union and removing themselves from the authority of DC.


 * I still don't see any evidence that any Confederate believed him or herself to be carrying out revolutionary social change on the local level, as the American Revolution accomplished.Professor Storyteller (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The US Constitution allowed for slavery’s ultimate extinction. The Congress, with a majority North and South, House and Senate, passed legislation barring African slave trade, so that in the first minute of 1808, there was, in Confederate terms, denial and impairment of ‘negro slavery’ as a property right of a US citizen.


 * Agreed, the South did not suffer abuses as in the Declaration. Lincoln’s first inaugural noted he was elected to only one term, as the last seven presidents. But, Confederates told one another that there were great injuries done States’ Rights of slave holding states before Lincoln could take office. In contrast, the Declaration lists twenty years of George III's policy.


 * Agreed, there were no oppressions to justify disunion. The USG action regarding slavery was capturing John Brown for execution by Virginia. In the face of Southern disunionists, it closed courts, withdrew marshals, abandoned post offices, suspended tariffs, deserted three mints, and gave up US forts and arsenals without legislation of Congress or any of the states, without firing a shot. Tyranny should be made of sterner stuff.


 * One Confederate who “believed himself carrying out revolutionary social change” was the Virginian George Fitzhugh in an 1863 issue of the ‘Southern Literary Messenger”.
 * "… We now come to the Southern Revolution of 1861, which we maintain was reactionary and conservative—a rolling back of the excesses of the Reformation—of Reformation run mad—a solemn protest against the doctrine of natural liberty, human equality and the social contract, ...infidel political economists...(Thomas, p.223)"


 * Agreed, Confederates saw the American Revolution (or Confederate) as preserving the rights of Anglo-Saxons. That could be done by simply separating from the UK's German King (or Union's Republican President) and removing themselves from the authority of London (or DC's Congress). Though not our use of the term, that was their meaning of 'revolution'.


 * There were, to them, no rights other than the traditions of the English for the descendants of the English. They used the word ‘Revolution’ to their own purposes, even ‘self delusion’ in Thomas’ expression. But that did not take away from the fact that there were SOME Confederates who said that their enterprise was about revolution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)