0

In the book "Three Months in the Southern States" by Sir Arthur James Lyon Fremantle, a travelogue written by a Scottish writer as he travels around the Confederacy during the American Civil War, the writer interviews the Confederate Secretary of State, Mr Benjamin. Mr Benjamin makes the claim that:

[...] the Confederates were more amused than annoyed at the term "rebel," which was so constantly applied to them; but he only wished mildly to remark, that in order to be a "rebel," a person must rebel against some one who has a right to govern him; and he thought it would be very difficult to discover such a right as existing in the Northern over the Southern States.

Which seems like a reasonable point to me. So the question is: before and during the American Civil War, what LEGAL arguments were used to justify keeping the Southern states in the Union by force, and do those legal arguments stand up to scrutiny? Also, would the same arguments apply today to a state that wished to secede from the USA?

DrMcCleod
  • 892
  • 7
  • 11
  • 1
    do those legal arguments stand up to scrutiny? is probably something only a qualified lawyer would be capable of assessing. – Steve Bird Jan 15 '24 at 10:26
  • I think that's what they were fighting over.... If the issue could have been resolved through legal means, they wouldn't have had to shed blood. Seems like this could be answered by Wiktionary – MCW Jan 15 '24 at 11:34
  • 7
    Might start with Was the secession of the Confederate states illegal?. – justCal Jan 15 '24 at 11:44
  • 1
    Honestly, @justCal, I'd say that answers this question completely, making this a duplicate. – cmw Jan 15 '24 at 13:59
  • 2
    The southern states were not subjected to the northern states, they were subjected to the central government of the USA. By putting it as South vs North, they were hiding the fact that one section, the South, was revolting against the central government and all of the other sections of the country. – MAGolding Jan 16 '24 at 06:55

0 Answers0