WI Georgia seceedes in ACW?

[Canis Lupus]

So I was watching Ken Burn's The Civil War last night, and I noted that at least twice in the program, the Govennor of Georgia(can't remember his name)Threatened to seceede from the Confederacy for various reasons.
So, lets assume that he goes through with it; how would this affect the outcome of the ACW, if at all?
Also, it seems to me that it would depend on when in the war they do it.

[Ace Venom]

Georgia would still be vulnerable to Federal troops, which is precisely why they didn't secede. At least while in the Confederacy, the Confederate Army has an obligation to protect them. If Georgia leaves the Confederacy, the South is effectively cut in two, but the Federals will still want to reclaim Georgia. Reconstruction might not be as harsh for them in this scenario. However, if Georgia jumps ship and offers to rejoin the Union in 1864, it would unravel the Confederacy.

[Ibn Warraq]

One of the great ironies of the Civil War is that if you read the Confederate Constitution you'll find it doesn't give states the right to secede.

If Georgia had seceded, then it's very possible that Jefferson Davis might have tried to forcibly prevent them from leaving the same way Abraham Lincoln did.

Now that would have delisciously ironic.

[DominusNovus]

One of the great ironies of the Civil War is that if you read the Confederate Constitution you'll find it doesn't give states the right to secede.

If Georgia had seceded, then it's very possible that Jefferson Davis might have tried to forcibly prevent them from leaving the same way Abraham Lincoln did.

Now that would have delisciously ironic.

That alone would see the Confederacy crumble and the war would be won all the sooner.

Even if it doesn't, that totally discredits the Confederate cause right there.

[Ibn Warraq]

That alone would see the Confederacy crumble and the war would be won all the sooner.

Even if it doesn't, that totally discredits the Confederate cause right there.

True, but I actually suspect that's what would happen.

There's actually a great part in Guns of The South when Mississippi threatens to secede in Lee wins the election against Forrest and Jefferson Davis upon hearing of this threatens to send the army after them and then it dawns on him just how hypocritical he's being.

[Roberto]

There's another great story in Alternate Generals Two in a TL where the CS wins the ACW and Louisiana and a couple other states secede because they want to abolish slavery which was illegal in TTL.

[Ace Venom]

Even if it doesn't, that totally discredits the Confederate cause right there.

Technically, the Union fighting against Southern secession discredited the ideas of Jefferson and the Revolution no matter if you think the Confederacy was the devil let loose on Earth or not, though consolidating power in the hands of a few as in the case of the Confederacy isn't exactly that admirable. The Declaration of Independence certainly isn't a governing document, but the whole idea that a people had a right to abolish the form of government that didn't serve the people was set in American thinking. There just wasn't a lot of sympathy north of the Mason-Dixon Line and Abraham Lincoln was very good at painting the slippery slope of further splintering of the Union. It worked because of Fort Sumter and the Union learned from the British that backing loyalists would be the best course of action.

The whole idea of secession was nothing new before the ACW because the US seceded from the United Kingdom less than a hundred years prior to the ACW. New England talked of it for years. Perhaps the biggest shock to the Union was that after years of people threatening to secede, someone actually did it. I would gamble to say the Confederate attitude would have been much the same in terms of shock. Just because some body threatens secession doesn't automatically mean they're going to do it.

[DominusNovus]

Technically, the Union fighting against Southern secession discredited the ideas of Jefferson and the Revolution no matter if you think the Confederacy was the devil let loose on Earth or not, though consolidating power in the hands of a few as in the case of the Confederacy isn't exactly that admirable. The Declaration of Independence certainly isn't a governing document, but the whole idea that a people had a right to abolish the form of government that didn't serve the people was set in American thinking. There just wasn't a lot of sympathy north of the Mason-Dixon Line and Abraham Lincoln was very good at painting the slippery slope of further splintering of the Union. It worked because of Fort Sumter and the Union learned from the British that backing loyalists would be the best course of action.

The whole idea of secession was nothing new before the ACW because the US seceded from the United Kingdom less than a hundred years prior to the ACW. New England talked of it for years. Perhaps the biggest shock to the Union was that after years of people threatening to secede, someone actually did it. I would gamble to say the Confederate attitude would have been much the same in terms of shock. Just because some body threatens secession doesn't automatically mean they're going to do it.

Well, the Southern constitution specifically stated that secession was legal. So, its harder for them to justify crushing a secession than it is for the North.

[Ibn Warraq]

There's another great story in Alternate Generals Two in a TL where the CS wins the ACW and Louisiana and a couple other states secede because they want to abolish slavery which was illegal in TTL.

According to the Confederate Constitution, states were not allowed to prohibit slavery.

I don't want to start any flamewars, but I think it is extremely telling that the South rebelled because they claimed states had the right to secede from the Union, however they did not give States the right to secede from the government in their constitution.

Instead, the Confederate Constitution, founded on the principals of "States Rights" argueably gave states fewer rights than the US constitution because the Conferderate Constitution explicitly prohibited states from repealing slavery while the US constitution didn't.

I think it's pretty clear that the Civil war was more about slavery than states rights.

[Locke]

And the bait is set....and someone is going for it.

[Strategos' Risk]

You're all wrong. The South went to war because they were vicious ecological anti-Luddites who hated the North's industrialism. i heard that alexander stephens had sex with a tree

[Atreus]

Th south falls apart. Without Georgia, they lose solddiers and a direct land link, while having to recapture it. Meanwhile, the Confederacy is going to rip itself apart in debates over Georgia's actions.

[Dean_the_Young]

The main important part of Georgia is Atlanta; if northern Georgia stays while the southern part leaves, the CSA doesn't have its heart ripped out. If all of Georgia secedes, the CSA is about as cut in half economically as when New Orleans was seized. They could build railroads that wildly circuit the north of the state, but adding the sides of a square to get from east to west...

[Jared]

Well, the Southern constitution specifically stated that secession was legal.

In what section? Please be specific.

So, its harder for them to justify crushing a secession than it is for the North.

"We have more men and more guns, so even if you secede, you won't succeed" would cover it pretty well.

[Ibn Warraq]

Well, the Southern constitution specifically stated that secession was legal. So, its harder for them to justify crushing a secession than it is for the North.

I'm pretty sure the Confederate Constitution DIDN'T give states the right to secede. IMHO that was a major hypocrisy on their part.

Here's a copy of it.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa.htm

I've read it over and didn't see any provision for it, but if I missed one, please point it out.

[Dean_the_Young]

Actually, I think I've found a better copy of the CS Constitution, one which is a side-by-side comparison with the US Constitution, with notes taken of the differences between the two.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

If you want to save some time, just skip to the summary at the end. (Emphasis mine)

SUMMARY


Overall, the CSA constitution does not radically alter the federal system that was set up under the United States constitution. It is thus very debatable as to whether the CSA was a significantly more pro-"states' rights" country (as supporters claim) in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicitly taken away- the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders, and the freedom of states to trade freely with each other.


States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit." When people champion the cause of reclaiming state power from the feds, are matters like these at the tops of their lists of priorities?
As previously noted, the CSA constitution does not modify many of the most controversial (from a states' rights perspective) clauses of the American constitution, including the "Supremacy" clause (6/1/3), the "Commerce" clause (1/8/3) and the "Necessary and Proper" clause (1/8/18). Nor does the CSA take away the federal government's right to suspend habeus corpus or "suppress insurrections."


As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is much more effective. Indeed, CSA constitution seems to barely stop short of making owning slaves mandatory. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of future anti-slave law or policy will be unconstitutional. People can claim the Civil War was "not about slavery" until the cows come home, but the fact remains that anyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for a country in which a universal right to own slaves was one of the most entrenched laws of the land.


In the end, however, many of the most interesting changes introduced in the CSA constitution have nothing to do with federalism or slavery at all. The President's term limit and line-item veto, along with the various fiscal restraints, and the ability of cabinet members to answer questions on the floor of Congress are all innovative, neutral ideals whose merits may still be worth pondering today.

[DominusNovus]

I'm pretty sure the Confederate Constitution DIDN'T give states the right to secede. IMHO that was a major hypocrisy on their part.

Here's a copy of it.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa.htm

I've read it over and didn't see any provision for it, but if I missed one, please point it out.

Forgive me. I was citing your post earlier, and misread it, thinking you had said that it was protected. :o

[Ibn Warraq]

Forgive me. I was citing your post earlier, and misread it, thinking you had said that it was protected. :o

Don't worry, you don't need to ask forgiveness. It was a simple mistake.

[Faeelin]

Forgive me. I was citing your post earlier, and misread it, thinking you had said that it was protected. :o

It's actually brilliant though, in a legal sense.

Why mention it? If you do, aren't you implying that the right wasn't part of the original US constitution and therefore illegal?

[Canis Lupus]

Cant seem to get to page two of this topic so I am posting this.

[Wendell]

Surely, Sherman's march to the sea will be different if it still happens ITTL.

[Dean_the_Young]

Surely, Sherman's march to the sea will be different if it still happens ITTL.

It might follow the policy difference from between North Carolina and South Carolina; North Carolina, which had only narrowly voted for secession, received reasonable/relatively light treatment. South Carolina, the spawning pit of the Confederacy, was razed.