Talk:New York Anti-Secession Ordinance

Lost in translation?

This page needs help from someone who can read the Chinese language. I'm having trouble clarifying this paragraph:

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 slavery-ridden Confederate States of America 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, the U.S. federal government enacted the Anti-Secession Act against the 11 Southern states that were struggling for independence.

It is unclear to me whether it was the editors at the International Herald Leader or it was Rao Gopin who claimed that the Anti-Secession Act existed. I think this is a vital distinction to make, but I can't clarify it myself because I can't read the source material. Carguychris (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. According to this report, this was a question at the meeting. The reporter asked whether the Chinese government had referenced laws from a foreign country. Rao Gopin then introduced to reporters that the law Anti-Secession Act could be invoked.--Beta Lohman※Office box 14:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, so it was Gopin. I'll tweak the wording to clarify this. Thanks. Carguychris (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Beta Lohman:, I have another question regarding this sentence:

On January 11, 1861, the New York State Assembly passed the Anti-Secession Act, which was soon approved by the President of the United States.

The President of the United States (POTUS) constitutionally lacks the power to formally approve state laws. The POTUS can approve U.S. federal laws that overrule state laws in certain cases, but he or she cannot directly approve or enforce a state law. This distinction is frequently lost on commentators unfamiliar with the U.S. legal system, possibly including the Chinese writers of the cited article. The key question: were the Chinese writers trying to convey that Lincoln personally (in an unofficial capacity) "approved" of the New York law in the sense that he thought it was a good idea, or does the article state that he formally approved it in a legal sense? Carguychris (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph is all the opinions from the Chinese journalist. I translated it from the Global Times post. Beta Lohman※Office box 16:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Beta Lohman: just to be clear: the Chinese journalist stated that Lincoln formally and lawfully approved a New York state law? Carguychris (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Carguychris: Yes, the post says the American president approved the law after the New York State Assembly passed it. --Beta Lohman※Office box 17:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Carguychris: There is a small mistake with editing. The Chinese essay of 2005 only quotes the title "Anti-Secession Act", but doesn't quote any law section. --Beta Lohman※Office box 21:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Do you mean the reference to the Insurrection Act? Carguychris (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think I figured it out. I think that "text" conveys the intended meaning better than "section". Carguychris (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Carguychris: This should be kept on the article.

“ the South Carolina legislature passed the secession act in 45 minutes without any discussion. ”

It is one of the vivid detail as the Global Times described. --Beta Lohman※Office box 01:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include every single detail that the Global Times cited. Carguychris (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

About See Also

During the 17th-century discussion of constitutional laws regarding the position of the parliament in England, Leges Edwardi Confessoris(LEC) was cited by the parliamentarians to justify parliamentary sovereignty as part of Ancient constitution of England vis-à-vis royal prerogative claimed by English crown. Nevertheless, there actually did not exist such law as 'Leges Edwardi Confessoris' in Edward the Confessor's time. Despite that relevant laws appeared much later, LEC was cited and viewed as part of the unwritten constitution by parliamentarians. See Burns, J. H's Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450-1700. --Aronlee90 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Suggest adding brief notes to this page to explain that. The likeness between the LEC and the article topic is not immediately clear. Carguychris (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aronlee90, I've written a description of Leges Edwardi Confessoris, but English history is not my strong suit! Can you comment whether the description is accurate? Carguychris (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this regard but I will try my best. The exact reference and wording have to be found in the book I mentioned before but it's not available for me right now.--Aronlee90 (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Texas v. White is generally seen as the equivalent to the so called 'Anti-Secession Act'.--Aronlee90 (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of Texas v. White but I wasn't going to add it here until I had time to hunt down a good citation. Carguychris (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Academic paper

• The 2005 paper is from the Peking University law site, but the site is registered only for Chinese citizens. There is an additional URL available for reading.

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" [Comparative Study on Anti -Secession Law Between China and USA]. 政治与法律 (in Chinese). 4: 30.--Beta Lohman※Office box 06:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

East Tennessee Anti-Secession Resolutions

George C., Thomas (2010-02-09). The Supreme Court on Trial: How the American Justice System Sacrifices Innocent Defendants. University of Michigan Press. p. 252. ISBN 9780472026081.

I only found one source in English. I've already removed it because I am not sure if this is also a part of the Pseudo-history. Plus, the article doesn't need this source as the Apple Daily is provided. --Beta Lohman※Office box 10:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)