Replies

If I understand your argument correctly, the Confederates forfeited their right of secession by the matter of their leaving. May we conclude that if they had been more polite they would have been justified?

If one tries to draw a distinction between the American Revolution and the southern secession based on tariff policy disputes, I think you play right into the Confederates hands. Likewise, when the American Navy moved to reinforce Fort Sumter, "we know what happened next." The distinctions are mostly artificial. It is not upon such niceties that great moral questions should be determined. As Judge Napolitano points out, Lincoln was not altogether polite in his suppression of the rebellion.

I think the right of secession turns not on such subjective niceties but on the fundamental right to secede or not. Is it a natural right? Is it is a constitutional right? Is it inherent in the peculiar arrangement of states which made the American union? If there was a right, was it somehow illegitimate to claim it to protect the perpetuation of slavery?

As to being wrapped up with events that ended 150 years ago, I take it you do not celebrate Independence Day on July 4? You do not celebrate Christmas or observe Yom Kippur?

You make a variety of assumptions - all bad.

If I understand your argument correctly, the Confederates forfeited their right of secession by the matter of their leaving.

Nope. There is no enumerated "right" of secession. But there could still be secession if conducted properly (see West Virginia). and nope - I said nothing about forfeiture of anything.

As Judge Napolitano points out, Lincoln was not altogether polite in his suppression of the rebellion.

So what? War is hell. They shouldn't have started something and set the pace for something they couldn't finish.

Again, there is no enumerated "right" to secession. There is a God-given natural right to rebellion as defense against tyranny. There was no tyranny occurring in the United States of 1860 - except arguable the one being perpetuated against blacks. The south started a war for no defensible reason other than their belligerence.

As to being wrapped up with events that ended 150 years ago, I take it you do not celebrate Independence Day on July 4? You do not celebrate Christmas or observe Yom Kippur?

You take it incorrectly.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/secession-slavery/

Secession and Slavery
by Scott McPherson September 12, 2008

An interesting commentary, “Lincoln, Secession, and Slavery” by Tibor Machan, published by the Cato Institute on June 1, 2002, was recently brought to my attention. I should say at the outset that I have long been a fan of Machan, and have the utmost respect for his positions. I just think he got it way wrong here.

Machan writes that the secession of the Southern states was ultimately an illegitimate act because “there is that undeniable evil of slavery.” Despite Lincoln’s own racist views, he was allegedly acting in the interests of the slaves, who were “unwilling third parties” to the secession, and therefore was “a good American” for destroying the Confederacy and slavery.

According to Machan,

[W]hen one considers that the citizens of the union who intended to go their own way were, in effect, kidnapping millions of people — most of whom would rather have stayed with the union that held out some hope for their eventual liberation — the idea of secession no longer seems so innocent. And regardless of Lincoln’s motives — however tyrannical his aspirations or ambitious — when slavery is factored in, it is doubtful that one can justify secession by the southern states.

So we can safely ignore Lincoln’s motives — “however tyrannical” [!] — because the motives of the “Southern rebels” were allegedly worse?

“[S]omething had to be done about [slavery],” writes Machan. “And to ask the slaves to wait until the rest of the people slowly undertook to change the Constitution seems obscene.” Machan acknowledges that the offending action was legal under the Constitution, but advocates and cheers an illegal and aggressive policy to rectify it because the normal, slow processes of constitutional change “seem obscene.”

Doesn’t that sound familiar?

In a habeas corpus proceeding in 1771, Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, ordered the release of a slave named James Sommersett who had accompanied his master on a trip to England. Mansfield reasoned that while slavery was legal elsewhere, England had no law “so odious.” Nevertheless, it would be almost 40 more years before the slave trade was abolished in the rest of the British Empire, and slavery was not outlawed altogether until 1833.

Great Britain’s slaves were very much expected to “wait … to change the Constitution.” Yet, slow as it came, change did come.

Following the wisdom of the Magna Carta reissued by King Henry III in 1225, which promised the benefits of legal custom to promote freedom, serfdom was eroded and eventually abolished completely over the course of 600 years by English courts.

On this foundation, Lord Mansfield took the same approach to slavery, stating that “Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say [slavery] is allowed or approved by the law of England; and, therefore, the black must be discharged.” With this ruling James Sommersett walked away a free man, as did other slaves held in bondage in England at that time. But, as stated above, this was only the beginning of the change. It would take sixty-two more years for England’s domains to be completely rid of the scourge.

The American colonies, and later the U.S. states, were following the same path. Throughout the 18th century attempts were made by colonial legislatures to limit slavery and the slave trade. The obstruction of these laws by the King and Parliament were among the grievances of the colonists.

After the Revolution, the Northern states gradually began abolishing slavery. In the South, where slavery was much more entrenched, the process was moving more slowly. But it was moving. Major reforms to slavery were debated in the Virginia legislature in 1830. More important, throughout the first half of the 19th century Southern courts were chipping away at the evil institution — just as English courts and legislators had chipped away at villeinage and slavery. Moreover, by allowing the Southern states to secede, the United States could have accelerated the demise of slavery by providing a haven for runaway slaves.

However, this isn’t good enough for Machan. To ask slaves to wait would have been “obscene.” So the obscenity of hundreds of thousands of dead Americans — whites and blacks alike — as well as the total undermining of our constitutional Republic and the horrible destruction of war is somehow justified.

According to Machan, the Southern states could not legitimately secede because they were taking along “hostages” who would have preferred to stay in a “union that held out some hope for their eventual liberation.” Yet it is clear that “eventual liberation” was already on its way.

Machan has backed himself into a difficult corner here. If liberation was coming too slowly, then what about the those slaves who would have preferred the presumably quicker liberation that was coming under the British government but who were nonetheless swept away as hostages to the American Revolution? If, as Machan states, “secession cannot be justified if it is combined with the evil of imposing the act on unwilling third parties,” then wouldn’t Lord Mansfield’s ruling, coming 5 years before the Declaration of Independence, mean that American independence in 1776 could not be justified either?

nathanbedford: "If I understand your argument correctly, the Confederates forfeited their right of secession by the matter of their leaving.
May we conclude that if they had been more polite they would have been justified? "

Everyone posting here believes in a "right of secession" -- lawful, Constitutional, peaceful secession -- as envisioned by our Founders.
They were all consistent in saying or implying that disunion must only come by "mutual consent" -- meaning Congress approves -- or through some "oppression" or "usurpation" making secession "necessary".

Our Founders also intended for the Supreme Court to settle disputes amongst states and Federal government, without secession.

What no Founder intended, and no state claimed, was a "right of secession" -- "at pleasure".
And yet, that's just what happened.

In early 1861, no seceding Deep-South state made use of available constitutional remedies for their grievances.
Instead they unilaterally declared secession, "at pleasure".
And what did the Federal Government under Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln do about it?

Basically, nothing, but speeches.

So Civil War came, in April 1861, not because the Deep-South declared secession, but because they started it, at Fort Sumter, and then formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.