Questions about the authority of the US Federal Government in the event that the CSA won.

I obviously don't know a lot about the American Civil War.I do have a few questions though,the question being in the unlikely event that the CSA did win,would the authority of the US Federal Government be strengthened or weakened,with possible new secessionist movements elsewhere looking at the CSA as a possible inspiration for self-determination?
 
It depends heavily on how they win. If the federal government acknowledges a legal right to secede then the US is probably doomed long term as there will likely be additional secession movements. If the the federal government basically takes the stance that they still don't have the right to secede but we can't stop them, then it's going to be interesting.
 
An amendment outlawing secession would almost certainly be quickly passed and then a lot of power would go from the state to the federal level. There is a good chance state militias would be made unconstitutional.
 
I don't think you'd see an amendment outlawing secession. That would imply the rebels were legitimate.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I don't think you'd see an amendment outlawing secession. That would imply the rebels were legitimate.

If the Confederacy has won and a peace treaty signed between the two sides, what other conclusion could be drawn? The British, after all, recognized the legitimate secession of their American colonies by signing the Treaty of Paris.
 
The conclusion is that the states have seceded and the US will recognize it, for now. But it doesn't mean their unconstitutional act was illegal.
 

ben0628

Banned
What other states would try to secede? And even if they did, the federal government would probably crush any future rebellion.

Also either one of two things happen in this scenario. Either the Union because heavily centralized and gives the federal government more power to prevent secession or the country becomes even more decentralized as a form of appeasement towards the states left in the Union.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The conclusion is that the states have seceded and the US will recognize it, for now. But it doesn't mean their unconstitutional act was illegal.

If a treaty is signed between the two sides (and the OP is not specific), then secession would obviously be recognized as constitutional and legal, since treaties form part of the supreme law of the land according to Article VI of the Constitution. Had secession been null and void, no treaty could be signed, so if a treaty has been signed, secession cannot be null and void.
 
This is a good point. Perhaps the US would refuse to call it a treaty, much as we have no peace treaty with Korea, nor do Taiwan and China.
 
This is a good point. Perhaps the US would refuse to call it a treaty, much as we have no peace treaty with Korea, nor do Taiwan and China.
For something this major,there will have to be an internationally recognized treaty,pretty sure some of the 'neutral' observers or perhaps even active participants in the war such as possibly Britain and France would have insisted upon it.
 
What's Britain going to do? Go to war if the US doesn't call a peace treaty a peace treaty? Presumably Americans will point to the Dutch War of Independence as an analogy.
 
The conclusion is that the states have seceded and the US will recognize it, for now. But it doesn't mean their unconstitutional act was illegal.

Wrong, if an act is unconstitutional then it's illegal- that's how a constitution works.
 
What's Britain going to do? Go to war if the US doesn't call a peace treaty a peace treaty? Presumably Americans will point to the Dutch War of Independence as an analogy.
They'd put diplomatic pressure on the US for sure or was an active participant in the war to begin with,which might explain how the CSA even won.Besides,IF the CSA was able to force a peace,it's easily presumable that they would settle for nothing other than full recognition of their independence through an internationally recognized peace treaty much like the Treaty of Westphalia.Spain never de jure recognized the Netherlands as being independent prior to Westphalia.
 
Why and how does Britain put pressure? It didn't put pressure to stop the US from going to war for years.
 
I don't think you'd see an amendment outlawing secession. That would imply the rebels were legitimate.

I think you would, an amendment would make it clear which would prevent the "secession is legal" argument that helped the South, in the future. A constitutional amendment would prevent the CSA's existence being used as a precedent. It would also allow the Federal government to do things to prevent it in the future such as outlaw state militias.
 
Top