Unsolved:New York Anti-Secession Ordinance

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

The New York Anti-Secession Ordinance,[1] also called as Anti-Secession Resolutions of the New York legislature (Chinese: 反脱离联邦决议/反脱離聯邦決議) is a temporary resolution passed in 1861 by the New York State Assembly before the outbreak of the American Civil War, calling on the Lincoln administration not to allow the Southern states to secede from the Union.[2][3]

In 2005, the Chinese government cited New York's anti-secession resolutions when enacting its anti-secession law.[4] The Ordinance is regarded by both Chinese jurisprudence and leading public opinion as a form of federal law.[5] The Chinese media almost always referred to it as the "Anti-Secession Act" (Chinese: 反脱离联邦法/反脱離聯邦法) and reported it extensively afterwards,[6][7] with only Initium Media arguing that it was a completely non-existent pseudo-historical law.

Full text

On January 11, 1861, the New York State Assembly passed the ordinance.[3] The full text is as follows.

Concurrent resolutions tendering aid to the President of the United States in support of the Constitution and the Union.

STATE OF NEW YORK, IN ASSEMBLY,

January 11, 1861.

Whereas, treason, as defined by the Constitution of the United States, exists in one or more of the States of this confederacy; and whereas, the insurgent State of South Carolina, after seizing the post-office, custom-house, moneys, and fortifications of the Federal Government, has, be firing into a vessel ordered by the Government to convey troops and provisions to Fort Sumter, virtually declared war; and whereas, the forts and property of the United States Government in Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana have been unlawfully seized, with hostile intentions; and whereas, further, Senators in Congress avow and maintain their treasonable acts: Therefore,

Resolved (if the Senate concur), That the Legislature of New York, profoundly impressed with the value of the Union and determined to preserve it unimpaired, hail with joy the recent firm, dignified, and patriotic special message of the President of the United States, and that we tender to him, through the Chief Magistrate of our own State, whatever aid in men and money he may require to enable him to enforce the laws and uphold the authority of the Federal Government; and that in defense of the "more perfect Union," which has conferred prosperity and happiness upon the American people, renewing the pledge given and redeemed by our fathers, we are ready to devote "our fortunes, our lives, and our sacred honor" in upholding the Union and the Constitution.

Resolved (if the Senate concur), That the Union-loving representatives and citizens of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee, who labor with devoted courage and patriotism to withhold their States from the vortex of secession, are entitled to the gratitude and admiration of the whole people.

Anti-Secession Act

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.[8]

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.[9]

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.[9]

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.[10]

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.[5]

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.[11]

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.[11]

Official propaganda

March 18, 2005, 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:[12]

The Global Times cited President Lincoln as a practitioner in the spirit of the Anti-Secession Act.[12]

In June 2005, the Chinese Communist Party's socialist paper, the Study Times, highlighted the Anti-Secession Act in its world history chapter, claiming that it was a law passed by the U.S. Congress.[13]

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.[14]

In fact, the Pledge of Allegiance was not composed until 1892, 31 years after the adoption of the New York Anti-Secession Ordinance.[15]

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,[12][16] and was widely praised by public opinion. Major Chinese media at the time loudly publicized and quoted the purported U.S. Anti-Secession Act.[6][7] Outside the official media, Chinese academic papers have been published comparing the differences between the Chinese and U.S. anti-secession acts.[17]

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.[18]

Apple Daily pointed out that Wen Jiabao brought up two anti-secession resolutions of the United States of 1861, the Anti-Secession Act (Anti-Secession Resolutions of the New York Legislature, 1861) and the East Tennessee Anti-Secession Resolutions. The coverage also explained the passage of this resolution by the New York State Assembly:[19]

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.[20]

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.[21]

See also

  • 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

References

  1. ↑ "The Civil War". 2008-05-05. http://www.historydoctor.net/Advanced%20Placement%20United%20States%20History/Civil%20War%20-%20Lead%20Page.htm. 
  2. ↑ "LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS.; SENATE. BILLS NOTICED. ASSEMBLY." (in en). New York Times. 1861-01-12. https://www.nytimes.com/1861/01/12/archives/legislative-proceedings-senate-bills-noticed-assembly.html. 
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 (in en) The War of the Rebellion: v. 1-3 [serial no. 127-129] Correspondence, orders, reports and returns of the Confederate authoriites, similar to that indicated for the Union officials, as of the third series, but includeing the correspondence between the Union and Confederate authorities, given in that series. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1900 (published 2009-01-08). p. 60. 
  4. ↑ "从《反分裂国家法》说起". People's Liberation Army Daily. 2005-10-07. http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2005-10-07/0626323854.html. 
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 "人大代表谈"反分裂法"立法：表决时心在打鼓(3)". Chinanews.com. 2007-03-02. http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2007-03-02/094911322905s.shtml. Retrieved 2022-04-28. 
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 "解读历史：美国把反分裂写进忠诚宣誓誓词". Yangcheng Evening News. 2005-03-15. http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2005-03-15/1807273246.html. Retrieved 2022-04-28. 
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 王平宇 (2005-03-15). "美反脫離聯邦法 遭中國誤用". Liberty Times. https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/5662. Retrieved 2022-01-26. 
  8. ↑ "敬酒不吃吃罰酒：對《反分裂國家法》的看法和期望". Straits Review Monthly. 2005-02-01. https://haixia-info.com/issues/170.html. Retrieved 2022-04-28. 
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 "两会后的中国：法学专家细解《反分裂国家法》". International Herald Leader. 2005-03-21. https://www.jxnews.com.cn/n12021/ca807795.htm. Retrieved 2022-04-28. 
  10. ↑ "十届人大三次会议在京闭幕(组图)". Qingdao News. 2005-03-14. http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2005-03-14/13015355606s.shtml. Retrieved 2022-04-28. 
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 "Premier Wen Jiabao Meets the Press". China Daily. 2005-03-14. https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/ceee/eng/dtxw/t188370.htm. 
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 "美国靠反分裂法维护统一 收复闹独立的11个州". Global Times. 2005-03-18. http://news.sina.com.cn/w/2005-03-18/17066126264.shtml. Retrieved 2022-01-25. 
  13. ↑ "亚伯拉罕·林肯的历史新意". Study Times. 2005. http://rdbk1.ynlib.cn:6251/qw/Paper/294556. 
  14. ↑ "署名文章："入联公投"于法不容(09/17/07)". People's Daily. http://us.china-embassy.gov.cn/zclm2013/zt/twwt/200709/t20070917_5068921.htm. 
  15. ↑ "The Pledge of Allegiance". Historic Documents. Independence Hall Association: ushistory.org. http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm. 
  16. ↑ Jim Yardley (2005-03-14). "China Denies 'Taiwan' Law Is a 'War Bill'". New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/world/asia/china-denies-taiwan-law-is-a-war-bill.html. "He said the United States Congress had passed similar resolutions in 1861 with the intent to stave off civil war, though he said he hoped the Chinese law would be more successful." 
  17. ↑ 李龙; 魏腊云 (2005). "中国《反分裂国家法》与美国《反脱离联邦法》的比较研究". 政治与法律 4: 30. https://www.pkulaw.com/qikan/04bf6161a42321b9353ab73e389b6d9ebdfb.html. Retrieved 2022-04-28. 
  18. ↑ "反分裂法與美國反脫離聯邦法同是正義之劍". Macau: Xinhua-ao newspaper. 2005-03-07. https://www.waou.com.mo/2005/03/07/%E5%8F%8D%E5%88%86%E8%A3%82%E6%B3%95%E8%88%87%E7%BE%8E%E5%9C%8B%E5%8F%8D%E8%84%AB%E9%9B%A2%E8%81%AF%E9%82%A6%E6%B3%95%E5%90%8C%E6%98%AF%E6%AD%A3%E7%BE%A9%E4%B9%8B%E5%8A%8D/. 
  19. ↑ 黃敬平 (2005-03-15). "國安局長叫民眾上街". Apple Daily. https://www.appledaily.com.tw/headline/20050315/QACOMUDC22OUV3C5P4U5YBZJGM/. 
  20. ↑ 周溯源 (2021-12-22). "历史学家视域中的"和平统一、一国两制"". China Reading Weekly. https://epaper.gmw.cn/zhdsb/images/2021-12/22/10/21122210B10LC_h.pdf. Retrieved 2022-04-28. 
  21. ↑ 時清也 (2022-04-27). "在血與火之間：俄烏戰爭背景下，中國的「反分裂」敘事困境". Initium Media. https://theinitium.com/article/20220427-opinion-ukraine-war-china-tw/. 

External links



Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Unsolved:New_York_Anti-Secession_Ordinance&oldid=3264650"