Hmm, What Can I Secede For and Have History Judge me Positively?

The Volokh Conspiracy is talking about secession and stupidity, and making some … interesting … arguments about secession being a viable option.

I agree that the constitutional/legal issue of secession has not been dealt with.  That being said, it is well nigh impossible to imagine circumstances in which the U.S. Government would allow a peaceable secession.  But the point that really interests me is this:

To avoid confusion, I should emphasize that I think that the federal government was right to suppress the Confederates’ efforts to secede. But not because secession is always illegal and impermissible. Rather, the Union was right in that instance because the southern states sought to secede for the indefensible purpose of protecting and extending the evil institution of slavery. Moreover, none of the southerners’ constitutional rights had been infringed by the federal government. Things would look very different if a state sought to secede for the purpose of defending fundamental human or constitutional rights rather than continuing to violate them; if, for example, the feds were trying to force slavery on unwilling free states.

First, that is what the South thought they were doing.  Ex post facto, the historical narrative has been shaped, absolutely rightly, to say that they weren’t.  That isn’t the only way it could have gone, how long did the phrase “War of Northern Aggression” persist?

It is an interesting principle though, not necessarily that history will be written by the winners, but that the rightness of secession/independence is based on future determination of the moral reason behind it.  Could California secede to defend the woman’s right to choose?  Texas to defend the right to bear arms?  What about Miami to defend the “wet feet dry feet” policy?

Think about it.

via Instapundit.

Posted in Law, Ramblings
Tags: History, Law