Unsolved:Anti-Secession Act of 1861

Short description: Pseudohistorical and non-existent U.S. law

The Anti-Secession Act (Chinese: 反脱离联邦法) is a pseudohistorical and non-existent U.S. law cited in 2005 when China enacted its Anti-Secession Law. Chinese legal professionals claim that it was a unified law enacted by the U.S. federal government in 1861 to counter the Confederate States of America. Spurious claims about the Anti-Secession Act in the Chinese media have been characterized as misinformation intended to legitimize China's own law and justify Chinese unification.

Background

After Chen Shui-bian's administration introduced the One Country on Each Side theory in 2002, the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) promoted anti-secession legislation. In 2005, the Chinese government invited legal professionals to explore the enaction of a formal law against Taiwanese independence.

Views of the Chinese legal profession

On March 8, 2005, at the third session of the 10th National People's Congress, Wang Zhaoguo, Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, invited scholars to participate in formulating a draft anti-secession law, and asked legal experts and experts on Taiwan to express their views. Rao Gopin, a professor at Peking University Law School, participated in many of the discussion sessions, studying legal issues related to Hong Kong from the perspective of international law and suggesting at the symposium that a law of national unity could be formulated by reference to the anti-secession act of America.

The International Herald Leader asked at the meeting whether China whether had drawn on the experience of the United States in enacting similar laws to prevent the independence of the Confederate States of America (CSA) before the American Civil War. Rao Gopin told reporters that anti-secession laws are not unique to China. Before the U.S. Civil War broke out in 1861, he said, the U.S. federal government enacted the Anti-Secession Act against the eleven southern CSA states that wanted to secede to maintain slavery. He said that the act was a federal law that was effective in all federal jurisdictions, and was the legal basis for the U.S. to use force against secessionists in the American South. Rao emphasized that the term used in the Chinese definition of the anti-secession law is also "Anti-Secession," which he believes serves as circumstantial evidence that Chinese legislators are referencing U.S. law.

On March 14, 2005, the Third Session of the Tenth National People's Congress (NPC) voted to pass the Anti-Secession Law. Its passage was met with enthusiastic applause, followed by the signing of the law by Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China.

The delegates at the meeting described the atmosphere as very solemn during the vote. However, there was controversy over the translation of the anti-secession law, as Taiwan argued that the English translation of the anti-secession law should be "Anti-Separation Law" instead of "Anti-Secession Law" as used by the Chinese side. NPC deputy Zhou Hongyu explained that the title refers to the U.S. Anti-Secession Act in the Chinese translation. As one of the earliest proponents of the proposal, Zhou believes that this translation leaves the U.S. with nothing to say and that Taiwan's response illustrates the correct naming, he stated.

“ This is because the counterpart of the U.S. Anti-Secession Act is called as the Anti-Secession Act, so we also use Secession, which means secession. ”

Wen Jiabao at a press conference

On March 14, 2005, Wen Jiabao responded to media questions during an international press conference at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. After passing a reporter from Taiwan's Era News Channel, the question was asked by a CNN reporter.

“ The question I would ask is about the Anti-Secession Law. In the legislation you stated what you would call China's right to use non-peaceful means against Taiwan. Could you clarify what those means could be? And if there is a conflict, a broader conflict with the United States, could China build an army that could win any war it has to fight, as you stated in your address to the NPC? ”

Wen Jiabao responded that the Taiwan issue is purely a domestic matter for China, and cited a similar law in the United States as an example.

“ ...If you care to read the two American anti-secession resolutions adopted in 1861, you will find they are similar to our law. In the US, the civil war broke out shortly afterward. But here we don't wish to see such a situation. ”

Chinese media commentary

The passage of China's Anti-Secession Law was acclaimed by the media within the People's Republic of China, especially when Wen Jiabao mentioned at a press conference that the law was modeled on the U.S. unification law, and was widely praised by public opinion. Major Chinese media at the time loudly publicized and quoted the purported U.S. Anti-Secession Act. Outside the official media, Chinese academic papers have been published comparing the differences between the Chinese and U.S. anti-secession acts.

Macau's Xinhua-ao newspaper praised the Anti-Secession Law, characterizing both the new Chinese law and the supposed U.S. law as instruments of justice, and praised the wording of the translation. The commentary states, "When the Chinese government introduced the Anti-Secession Law to the U.S. government, it translated "分裂" as "SECESSION," which is the same as secession and treason in the American Civil War, highlighting the fact that China's Anti-Secession Law is the same sword of justice as the Anti-Secession Federal act in the glorious history of the Civil War between the south and the north.

The nationalist Global Times described U.S. historical events in graphic detail. In the mid-19th century, black slavery on plantations was practiced in the American South but was becoming increasingly controversial, and in November 1832, South Carolina began to discuss secession from the Union. After Abraham Lincoln was elected president, the South Carolina legislature passed a secession act, followed by Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas . Faced with the imminent division of the country, American people in the northern states rose up in support of the federal government. The Global Times claimed that, on January 11, 1861, the New York State Assembly passed the Anti-Secession Act, which was approved by the President of the United States, and that the law reads:

“ The courts of the State of New York, well aware of the value of unity, are determined to preserve the unity of the country unimpaired ...... Unity has given prosperity and happiness to the people of the United States, and in defense of that unity ...... we are prepared to sacrifice our property, our lives, and our sacred honor. ”

“ The citizens and representatives of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee who stood for unity and resisted the nation's descent into secession with unparalleled courage and patriotism deserve the gratitude and admiration of the entire American nation. ”

The Global Times cited President Lincoln as a practitioner in the spirit of the Anti-Secession Act.

“ In his inaugural address, Lincoln reaffirmed the spirit of the Anti-Secession Act. He said, "No state can lawfully secede from the Union by its own motion alone; all resolutions and acts made for that purpose are legally invalid, and violent action by any state or states against the authorities of the United States shall be considered, according to circumstances, as rebellion ...... The Union is not to be divided under the Constitution and laws." Lincoln's speech sounded the trumpet of the struggle against secession, and on April 12, the Southern rebels attacked the Northern armies and the American Civil War broke out. ”

In 2007, the Chinese Embassy in the United States published an op-ed of the People's Daily. The article refuted Chen Shui-bian's government's referendum on membership in the United Nations and cited the U.S. anti-secession act. The article stated.

“ In the United States, in addition to the Anti-Secession Act passed in the 1860s, every citizen is required to recite in the Pledge of Allegiance, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, by which all men are free and righteous. ”

In 2021, Zhou Suyuan, a professor of history at Wuhan University, positively affirmed that the United States enacted the Anti-Secession Act and ultimately preserved the unity of the United States by limiting the secession of the Confederate States by Southern slaveholders.

Outside reactions

Outside of mainstream Chinese media and academia, the Act has been characterized as misinformation. In 2020, it was revealed by online commentators in the self-media that the U.S. Congress had never passed such a law, and therefore the Act did not exist. An article written by the overseas Chinese language media, Wall Street News Agency, explored U.S. laws during the Civil War. The commentary stated that there was never such a law in American history.

Initium Media found that the most similar documented U.S. law is the earlier Insurrection Act. Intuit pointed to a lengthy essay in the 2005 issue of the Chinese journal "Comparative Study on Anti-Secession Law Between China and USA", which does not actually cite text of the purported U.S. anti-secession law at all. Columnist Shi Qingye argues that borrowing from U.S. law cannot solve China's narrative dilemma in backing unification, and that the answer might be found in the abdication edict of the Qing Dynasty.

See also

• Leges Edwardi Confessoris, a collection of English laws purportedly composed in 1070 but now believed to have been written decades later to legitimize laws imposed after the Norman Conquest
• Ancient constitution of England, a 17th-century theory regarding the antiquity of the House of Commons of England in which Leges Edwardi Confessoris was cited in support of the political position of parliament
• Texas v. White, an 1869 U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing that it had been illegal under the U.S. Constitution in 1861 for states to secede unilaterally