View source for Unsolved:Anti-Secession Act of 1861

{{Short description|Pseudohistorical and non-existent U.S. law}}
The '''Anti-Secession Act ''' ({{lang-zh|反脱离联邦法}}) is a pseudohistorical and non-existent U.S. law cited in 2005 when {{wipe|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 [[Place:Confederate States of America|Confederate States of America]].<ref name="sina_1807273246">{{cite news |title=解读历史：美国把反分裂写进忠诚宣誓誓词 |url=http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2005-03-15/1807273246.html |publisher=Sina Corp |work=Yangcheng Evening News |date=2005-03-15 |accessdate=2022-04-28 |archive-date=2022-01-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220125160347/http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2005-03-15/1807273246.html |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref name="wllstimes" /><ref name="theinitium" />

==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.<ref>{{cite news |title=敬酒不吃吃罰酒：對《反分裂國家法》的看法和期望 |url=https://haixia-info.com/issues/170.html |publisher=海峽評論 |issue=170 |date=2005-02-01 |accessdate=2022-04-28 |archive-date=2021-02-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210226191118/https://haixia-info.com/issues/170.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

==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 [[Finance:International law|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.<ref name="jxnews_n12021">{{cite news |title=两会后的中国：法学专家细解《反分裂国家法》 |url=https://www.jxnews.com.cn/n12021/ca807795.htm |publisher=Jiangxi Daily |work=International Herald Leader |date=2005-03-21 |accessdate=2022-04-28 |archive-date=2022-04-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220427223412/https://www.jxnews.com.cn/n12021/ca807795.htm}}</ref>

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 [[Place:Confederate States of America|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 [[Social:Slavery|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 [[Social:Separatism|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.<ref name="jxnews_n12021" />

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.<ref>{{cite news |title=十届人大三次会议在京闭幕(组图) |url=http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2005-03-14/13015355606s.shtml |publisher=Sina Corp |work=青岛新闻网 |date=2005-03-14 |accessdate=2022-04-28 |archive-date=2022-04-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220427235036/http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2005-03-14/13015355606s.shtml |url-status=live }}</ref>

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 [[Philosophy:Translation|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.<ref>{{cite news |title=人大代表谈"反分裂法"立法：表决时心在打鼓(3) |url=http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2007-03-02/094911322905s.shtml |publisher=Sina Corp |work=Chinanews.com |date=2007-03-02 |accessdate=2022-04-28 |archive-date=2011-11-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111111074110/http://news.sina.com.cn/o/2007-03-02/094911322905s.shtml |url-status=live }}</ref>
{{cquote|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 [[Social:Press conference|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.<ref name="mfa_Estonia">{{cite news |title=Premier Wen Jiabao Meets the Press |url=https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/ceee/eng/dtxw/t188370.htm |publisher=Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the Republic of Estonia |work=China Daily |date=2005-03-14 |access-date=2022-04-29 |archive-date=2022-04-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220429113503/https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/ceee/eng/dtxw/t188370.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>
{{cquote|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.<ref name="mfa_Estonia" />
{{cquote|...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,<ref name="sina_17066126264">{{cite news |title=美国靠反分裂法维护统一 收复闹独立的11个州 |url=http://news.sina.com.cn/w/2005-03-18/17066126264.shtml |publisher=Sina Corp |work=Global Times |date=2005-03-18 |accessdate=2022-01-25 |archive-date=2005-03-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050321031517/http://news.sina.com.cn/w/2005-03-18/17066126264.shtml}}</ref> and was widely praised by public opinion. Major Chinese media at the time loudly publicized and quoted the purported U.S. Anti-Secession Act.<ref name="sina_1807273246" /><ref name="ltn_5662">{{cite news |author=王平宇 |title=美反脫離聯邦法 遭中國誤用 |url=https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/5662 |publisher=Liberty Times |date=2005-03-15 |accessdate=2022-01-26 |archive-date=2022-04-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220125163016/https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/5662 |url-status=live}}</ref> Outside the official media, Chinese academic papers have been published comparing the differences between the Chinese and U.S. anti-secession acts.<ref>{{cite journal |author=李龙 |author2=魏腊云 |title=中国《反分裂国家法》与美国《反脱离联邦法》的比较研究 |url=https://www.pkulaw.com/qikan/04bf6161a42321b9353ab73e389b6d9ebdfb.html |trans-title=Comparative Study on Anti -Secession Law Between China and USA |journal=政治与法律 |volume=4 |issue= |pages=30 |doi= |date=2005 |access-date=2022-04-28 |archive-date=2022-05-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220505055612/https://www.pkulaw.com/qikan/04bf6161a42321b9353ab73e389b6d9ebdfb.html |url-status=live |url-access=limited}}</ref>

[[Place:Macau|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.<ref>{{cite news |title=反分裂法與美國反脫離聯邦法同是正義之劍 |url=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/ |publisher=Xinhua-ao newspaper |location={{MAC}} |date=2005-03-07 |access-date=2022-06-16}}</ref>

The nationalist ''Global Times'' described U.S. historical events in graphic detail. In the mid-19th century, black [[Social:Slavery|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 {{wipe|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:<ref name="sina_17066126264" />
{{cquote|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.}}
{{cquote|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.<ref name="sina_17066126264" />
{{cquote|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.<ref>{{cite news |title=署名文章："入联公投"于法不容(09/17/07) |url=https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/ceus/chn/zt/twwt/t363205.htm |publisher=Embassy of China, Washington, D.C. |work=People's Daily |date=2007-09-17 |access-date=2022-04-29 |archive-date=2022-04-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220429065118/https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/ceus/chn/zt/twwt/t363205.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>
{{cquote|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.<ref>{{cite news |author=周溯源 |title=历史学家视域中的"和平统一、一国两制" |url=https://epaper.gmw.cn/zhdsb/images/2021-12/22/10/21122210B10LC_h.pdf |publisher=Guangming Daily |work=China Reading Weekly |date=2021-12-22 |accessdate=2022-04-28 |archive-date=2022-04-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220430134709/https://epaper.gmw.cn/zhdsb/images/2021-12/22/10/21122210B10LC_h.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Outside reactions==
Outside of mainstream Chinese media and academia, the Act has been characterized as misinformation.<ref name="wllstimes" /><ref name="theinitium" /> 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.<ref>{{cite news |title=加州不可能独立，美国历史上也从来没有过《反脱离联邦法》 |url=https://www.163.com/dy/article/FA8LVMEQ0543A5K5.html |publisher=[[Company:NetEase|NetEase]] |work=寰宇大观察 |date=2020-04-15 |accessdate=2022-01-26 |archive-date=2022-01-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220125161518/https://www.163.com/dy/article/FA8LVMEQ0543A5K5.html |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref name="wllstimes">{{cite news |author=杜语 |title=在美国内乱的情况下，美国有分裂的可能性吗？ |url=http://www.wllstimes.com/index.php/zh/%E6%9D%9C%E8%AF%AD%E8%AE%BA%E5%A4%A9%E4%B8%8B/%E5%9C%A8%E7%BE%8E%E5%9B%BD%E5%86%85%E4%B9%B1%E7%9A%84%E6%83%85%E5%86%B5%E4%B8%8B%EF%BC%8C%E7%BE%8E%E5%9B%BD%E6%9C%89%E5%88%86%E8%A3%82%E7%9A%84%E5%8F%AF%E8%83%BD%E6%80%A7%E5%90%97%EF%BC%9F |publisher=Wall Street News Agency |location={{USA}} |date=2020-06-15 |access-date=2022-04-30 |archive-date=2022-05-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220505055611/http://www.wllstimes.com/index.php/zh/%E6%9D%9C%E8%AF%AD%E8%AE%BA%E5%A4%A9%E4%B8%8B/%E5%9C%A8%E7%BE%8E%E5%9B%BD%E5%86%85%E4%B9%B1%E7%9A%84%E6%83%85%E5%86%B5%E4%B8%8B%EF%BC%8C%E7%BE%8E%E5%9B%BD%E6%9C%89%E5%88%86%E8%A3%82%E7%9A%84%E5%8F%AF%E8%83%BD%E6%80%A7%E5%90%97%EF%BC%9F |url-status=live }}</ref>

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.<ref name="theinitium">{{cite news |author=時清也 |title=在血與火之間：俄烏戰爭背景下，中國的「反分裂」敘事困境 |url=https://theinitium.com/article/20220427-opinion-ukraine-war-china-tw/ |publisher=Initium Media |date=2022-04-27 |access-date=2022-04-28 |url-access=subscription |archive-date=2022-04-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220427060505/https://theinitium.com/article/20220427-opinion-ukraine-war-china-tw/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

==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

==References==
{{Reflist|20cm}}


[[Category:Pseudohistory]]

{{Sourceattribution|Anti-Secession Act of 1861|1}}