Southern states want to quit CSA -- what happens?

The states are also subordinate to the Federal Government. Besides that rule is valid only "by consent of the governed" , the main argument, applies to counties as well. State borders are as arbitrary as county ones after all.

Subordinate to, not mere appendages of. If I may draw an analogy (granted, this was alot more solid an arguement in the legal theory of the 19th century, before the strengthening of the Federal and weakening of State authority as power has been transfered upward. And I'm not saying I agree with it; just that it was a commonly held legal principal at the time), its the difference between the relationship between me and my employer and me and my arm. In both cases the later does what the former wants, but the limits of that power and the reasoning/relationship between the two things is entirely different.
 
Subordinate to, not mere appendages of. If I may draw an analogy (granted, this was alot more solid an arguement in the legal theory of the 19th century, before the strengthening of the Federal and weakening of State authority as power has been transfered upward. And I'm not saying I agree with it; just that it was a commonly held legal principal at the time), its the difference between the relationship between me and my employer and me and my arm. In both cases the later does what the former wants, but the limits of that power and the reasoning/relationship between the two things is entirely different.

A county or a city isn't a mere appendage, they have powers of their own. Your arm has no power of its own.
 
... at which point townships that disagreed with the Counties might do the same thing. And then individual landowners within said townships decide THEY don't have to listen to no dumb city hall and can do what they please as "sovereign citizens". Which is what happens if you decide their isen't legally some line at which "sovereignty" kicks in to government institutions and take that to its logical conclusion.

I really don't disagree with this reasoning at all, TBH. It's the chain of events that a successfully independent CSA could have set off; to your point, though, it seems plausible that there might've been a pretty robust discussion about the "limits" of secession in the hopes of curtailing separatist tendencies among those who wanted to leave.
 
A county or a city isn't a mere appendage, they have powers of their own. Your arm has no power of its own.
I really don't disagree with this reasoning at all, TBH. It's the chain of events that a successfully independent CSA could have set off; to your point, though, it seems plausible that there might've been a pretty robust discussion about the "limits" of secession in the hopes of curtailing separatist tendencies among those who wanted to leave.

It produces as system that's really non-functional and renders any structure above the individual entirely pointless. If disobeying the state is justified merely because I disagree with it, than what's the point of any law whatsoever? It's just the same as if it diden't exist.

And those powers are granted by the State, just as I grant power to my arm via nerves, feeding it, ect. The States would argue that, since states came together to form the US, by their nature they are as a category sovereign entities, whereas counties were the creation of State constitutions who petition the state for the right to come into existance. Again, we're talking about the law and understand of the relationship between the levels of government of mid-19th century America: not post-Civil War, post-Progressive Era, post-New Deal society with its evolution of powers.
 
It produces as system that's really non-functional and renders any structure above the individual entirely pointless. If disobeying the state is justified merely because I disagree with it, than what's the point of any law whatsoever? It's just the same as if it diden't exist.

I mean, yeah … whether or not it makes a ton of sense, it's hardly inconceivable that more localized units of governance in the CSA decide to make the argument anyway, right? Again, assume the conditions we're considering, here: the CSA has won, things haven't gone well since the CSA's victory, there have been disputes between the CSA's central authority and some of the counties / states, and those counties / states want to secede. I'm not necessarily defending the rightness of their position, but suggesting that it's certainly possible they'd assert it. Don't you think that there's a chance a cluster of localities in WVA might consider a sort of "re-secession" in light of their experience with the CSA, assuming that said experience was an especially bad one?
 
If Texas seceded from the CSA, I'm wondering if Mexico would try and see if they could re-annex it with US support. Another thing I'm wondering is how this could effect things politically. It would humiliate the CSA cause even further and maybe the radical Republicans would push to have the areas under mroe direct control when the states disorganize into chaos and general population or so on beg for Uncle Sam to go and save them.

It'd also mean that Southern revisionism would probably be less likely
 
I mean, yeah … whether or not it makes a ton of sense, it's hardly inconceivable that more localized units of governance in the CSA decide to make the argument anyway, right? Again, assume the conditions we're considering, here: the CSA has won, things haven't gone well since the CSA's victory, there have been disputes between the CSA's central authority and some of the counties / states, and those counties / states want to secede. I'm not necessarily defending the rightness of their position, but suggesting that it's certainly possible they'd assert it. Don't you think that there's a chance a cluster of localities in WVA might consider a sort of "re-secession" in light of their experience with the CSA, assuming that said experience was an especially bad one?

I'm not saying that the argument might not be seen as a useful one: I'm saying the legal precidents in an English-style common law system are VERY touchy things, and more or less removing the idea of institutional sovereignty from your legal code by making it an established legal point is an INCREDIBLY delicate matter and needs to be coached in exactly the right way. The movement would need to come up with some legal precident in order to move the idea of sovereign authority down to their level while still being able to say "The relationship between township and county is different, so THEY can't secede from/disobey US and we can maintain some kind of meaningful legal existance". WV IOTL managed to dodge this mainly because A) They started by claiming to be the legitiment government of ALL of Virgina, which according to the Federal government still existed as part of the Union, and B) Later on they followed the legal procedure to become a state according to the US Constitution, making it legal.

One can see a similar example of legalistic importance in GB's reaction to the blockade policy of the US. Simply put, they COULDEN'T afford to insist the blockade rules be interpreted so loosely as to have any practical means of defying it, as establishing such a precident would bind THEM to similarly strict standards for what constituted legal blocakade, which would effectively knock the sword out of the hands of the Royal Navy in any future conflicts. Genies, once let out of bottles, are not easily shoved back in.
 
Look into the Free-State of Jones - it was tried and it was a miserable disaster.

It lasted about as long as the CSA. IIRC it didn't end until the US government (whose authority it did recognize being made largely up by Unionists) asserted its authority. Until then it pretty much raised hell against the CSA.
 
I'm not saying that the argument might not be seen as a useful one: I'm saying the legal precidents in an English-style common law system are VERY touchy things, and more or less removing the idea of institutional sovereignty from your legal code by making it an established legal point is an INCREDIBLY delicate matter and needs to be coached in exactly the right way. The movement would need to come up with some legal precident in order to move the idea of sovereign authority down to their level while still being able to say "The relationship between township and county is different, so THEY can't secede from/disobey US and we can maintain some kind of meaningful legal existance". WV IOTL managed to dodge this mainly because A) They started by claiming to be the legitiment government of ALL of Virgina, which according to the Federal government still existed as part of the Union, and B) Later on they followed the legal procedure to become a state according to the US Constitution, making it legal.

One can see a similar example of legalistic importance in GB's reaction to the blockade policy of the US. Simply put, they COULDEN'T afford to insist the blockade rules be interpreted so loosely as to have any practical means of defying it, as establishing such a precident would bind THEM to similarly strict standards for what constituted legal blocakade, which would effectively knock the sword out of the hands of the Royal Navy in any future conflicts. Genies, once let out of bottles, are not easily shoved back in.

True enough but if there are enough rebellions in the CSA it wouldn't matter. If the CSA can't put them down British Common Law won't help them a bit.
 
Top