Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Secession a Right?
Capitalism Magazine ^ | Walter Williams

Posted on 06/04/2002 9:50:22 AM PDT by aconservaguy

Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

Do States Have a Right of Secession? By Walter Williams (April 19, 2002)

Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, "The Real Lincoln," Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let's look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty." The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go." DiLorenzo cites other editorials expressing identical sentiments.

Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.

DiLorenzo does a yeoman's job in documenting Lincoln's ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That's why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.

COPYRIGHT 2002 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Editor's Comment: Secession is not protection against establishing a government to prevent the abolishment of slavery. The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the "self-determination" of "peoples," but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: dixielist; walterwilliamslist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-195 next last

1 posted on 06/04/2002 9:50:22 AM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
Walter Williams bump. Definitely bookmarked for future ammo :)

2 posted on 06/04/2002 9:54:19 AM PDT by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
Yes. Otherwise West Virginia is not a state.
3 posted on 06/04/2002 10:00:08 AM PDT by jae471
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
Well he ruined his entire argument by relying so heavily in Tom DiLorenzo - a proven rail-splitting non-truth teller.
4 posted on 06/04/2002 10:00:36 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy;Alabama_Wild_Man
Ping for another "Lincoln killed the Constitution" article.
5 posted on 06/04/2002 10:00:53 AM PDT by KentuckyWoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
Are there any Arizona FReepers online reading this? I seem to recall someone telling me once that the Arizona Constitution has a provision to allow it to secede if the right to own guns is ever taken away. Can anyone confirm this?

Thanks
6 posted on 06/04/2002 10:01:39 AM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Urban legend, methinks. Could find no reference to it in the state constitution.
7 posted on 06/04/2002 10:04:57 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Aww...too bad, huh?

I was born in Glendale.
8 posted on 06/04/2002 10:06:03 AM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KentuckyWoman
Yeah, the U.S. has really sucked since the 1860's.

Since it's so bad here for you, why don't you move to Russia, where the breakaway countries are doing so well.

9 posted on 06/04/2002 10:07:45 AM PDT by Vladiator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
Yes secession is a right. You can board any international airliner leaving the United States and choose not to come back. No one will stop you.
10 posted on 06/04/2002 10:11:43 AM PDT by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vladiator
Yes, secession is a right...you only have to win the resulting war.

The next 20-30 years might see exactly that happen as the US becomes more authoritarian in nature and Russia embraces capitalism and freedom many of us may very well move to Russia.

Stuff it in your hat and smoke it.
11 posted on 06/04/2002 10:12:59 AM PDT by Maelstrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jae471
And that is the paradox and the irony for those who say secession can never be allowed. One of the "new" Union states (which by the way was allowed to continue slavery throughout the Civil War) was born of coerced secession, having masses of Union troops rushed in to "convince" western Virginia to become a part of the Union cause. Besides, if secession is immoral, then the formation of the United States was indeed an act of treason and the Crown of England was right when they declared us an illegitimate entity. I guess the old adage that the winners of wars write the history books invariably to their own advantage still holds true. However, that cannot wash away the factual basis of what created our republic in the first place.
12 posted on 06/04/2002 10:14:14 AM PDT by rebelsoldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rebelsoldier
If seccession is impossible, then the Declaration of Independence is rather hollow, isn't it?
13 posted on 06/04/2002 10:15:48 AM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Vladiator
Since it's so bad here for you, why don't you move to Russia

Why don't you blow it out your ears!! Either argue on Constitutional grounds or get a life! This Nation was founded as a Constitutional Republic and has been turned into a Socialist Democracy by those in charge because people like YOU seem to have their heads stuck where the sun don't shine.

14 posted on 06/04/2002 10:19:06 AM PDT by KentuckyWoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xrp
I don't know about that, but have always heard Texas retained it's right to secede. This used to be a comfort (even if untrue). With the immigration problem, I am not sure anymore.

But, geez, from the posts, I see no one really believes in the right of self-determination anymore, or even the discussion of it.

15 posted on 06/04/2002 10:20:56 AM PDT by nanny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Please enumerate the legal (as opposed to natural) right of secession that we had from England.

The Declaration states that people have a natural right to rebel against tyrannical govenment; that doesn't equate to any sort of legally enforceable right to secede.

16 posted on 06/04/2002 10:23:31 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
One of the neglected arguments for the right of secession is the contractarian one -- that the Constitution, being a contract that binds the states and the federal government into a specified set of obligations to one another, is null and void if either side should violate it.

The critical observation is that there is no enforcement authority for the Constitution. An elected federal official who has sworn to presrve, protect and defend it, and who then violates that oath, faces no penalty for having done so, nor can he be prevented from doing so again. Since this is plainly what has happened many times in the course of the past century, we must ask just what shelter for our rights the Constitution provides, and therefore what loyalty or duty we owe to the government it constitutes.

Are there worse places to live than America? Indeed, yes: just about everywhere else on Earth. That doesn't have any bearing at all on the moral, legal, and philosophical questions that surround the demonstrated failure of the Constitutional contract to protect the rights we were assured would be safe in its care.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

17 posted on 06/04/2002 10:24:31 AM PDT by fporretto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
If the people of one of these united states decided that they would be better off out of the Union and voted to secede and I was ordered to attack them by the government in Washington for no other reason than their secession, I would consider the order to be "unlawful" and I would go to jail before I would participate in any attack on them.
18 posted on 06/04/2002 10:24:44 AM PDT by al_possum39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nanny
But, geez, from the posts, I see no one really believes in the right of self-determination anymore, or even the discussion of it.

I believe in the right of self-determination. I don't believe in a legal, unilateral, and absolute right of secession that has no limit.

19 posted on 06/04/2002 10:25:26 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fporretto
An elected federal official who has sworn to presrve, protect and defend it, and who then violates that oath, faces no penalty for having done so, nor can he be prevented from doing so again.

False statement. Those who elect him have the right to throw him out of office at the next election.

BTW, who would you trust with any enforcement mechanism?

20 posted on 06/04/2002 10:27:09 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-195 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson