Posted on 06/29/2023 4:16:36 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
The late Great Walter Williams makes it quite clear that he believed the South had a right to secede.
Isn't taking up arms a rational response to being attacked by the Federal government?
You do know Lincoln attacked them first, don't you?
Of course they don't teach that part of history, so maybe you don't.
He believed the transcendent law of nature demanding the right of self-preservation declared the safety and happiness of society must dominate political institutions and require their sacrifice. Any use of force against a state would be invasion.
I have always preferred Walter Williams over Thomas Sowell, but in the last year or so, I have had occasion to see more of what Thomas Sowell has written and said, and I am quite impressed with it.
He is more intellectual sounding than Williams, which may be why I prefer Williams, but his reasoning and articulation are very good, and he occasionally comes up with a gem of a statement. I have saved several of his that I thought were noteworthy.
What Constitutional argument do you submit that States are eternally locked in to the Union? The very antithesis of the Declaration of Independence.
Ping.
5.56mm
“Sounds like the government was totally fine with slavery forever.”
Yep. Still is.
Except now it’s termed “Human Trafficking” so citizens won’t notice what it really is.
I agree that they had the right to secede.
And they had the right to establish that right by the laws and usages of war.
What they don’t have the right to is to appeal the verdict of the laws of war. Its judgement is final.
I think that is likely true. A lot of people were afraid of the idea of a powerful central government. The anti-federalists also wrote a lot of papers and I have had occasion to read some of them, and I am often amazed at their ability to predict exactly the calamitys that have befallen us.
He believed the transcendent law of nature demanding the right of self-preservation declared the safety and happiness of society must dominate political institutions and require their sacrifice. Any use of force against a state would be invasion.
I would be interested if you had any such James Madison quote. I can't say i'm familiar with this notion coming from him.
“A “right to secession” clause is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.”
And the right to drink cherry infused Dr. Pepper is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
It doesn’t need to be.
And they had the right to establish that right by the laws and usages of war.
That sounds like circular reasoning. It sounds like you are saying they had the right to leave *IF* they had the power to win a war. In simple terms, "might makes right."
That is not how I understand natural rights. Your argument applies perfectly well to slavery. A slave cannot be free if he cannot overcome a superior force holding him in bondage.
Walter Williams was someone I looked up to for his words of wisdom and non nonsense academic rigor. He is of course completely correct here.
“Darn, I didn’t even know WW had passed. RIP.”
Me too, seems they SPIKED it.
He’s not ignoring the constitution. He is recognizing that the states are sovereign, that they created the federal government and delegated some of their sovereign powers to it and that they reserved the right to unilaterally secede.
That is nowhere contradicted in the Constitution nor was that in any way contradicted in the Articles of Confederation.
Walter Williams was a great man.
“This ignores our first constitution, The Articles of Confederation which was ratified by 1781.”
The Articles of Confederation created the first union, stating it would be perpetual.
Then one by one the states left that first, perpetual union - seceded - and began to build a second union which did not claim to be perpetual.
It wasn’t the British who insisted each state be recognized as sovereign by name in the Treaty of Paris. It was the representatives of the States themselves who insisted on that.
I have never heard of Madison writing any letter to New York saying that once a state ratifies it cannot secede. This goes against the whole tone and tenor of the Federalist Papers. It also goes against what Hamilton said to the New York Assembly when it was brought up that the federal government might become overmighty: ““To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself, a government that can only exist by the sword?”.
Had Madison said clearly that a state cannot secede or written that into the constitution, it is certain no state would have ratified it. 3 states including New York and Virginia expressly reserved the right to unilaterally secede at the time that they ratified the constitution so they certainly weren’t agreeing to surrender their sovereignty forever to the newly created federal government.
I’ll work on this. I think I probably have a link, but it may just be in his notes to the Convention. I really enjoy reading the notes. It is just as if I could meet him in a tavern at the end of a day.
This is rule by majority of bayonets.
What made the American experience exceptional was the founder's belief: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”
Of course, this did not survive the disaster at Appomattox.
Wouldn’t that be a great “gotcha” question for political candidates?
Because most candidates wouldn’t know how to answer, or would default to their usual - “You ain’t got F16s, man”, or suggest nuking American citizens, while on the other hand even the mere suggestion of retaliatory strikes on foreign countries who would strike first is “not who we are”.
I think reasonably intelligent people could give good answers, the problem with too many of our politicians frankly is they are not very bright. It isn’t a matter of education - they have the *credentials* but they are too often very dense and cheerleaders for unitary government. They don’t believe in our form of government, they hate it and want to change it, believing they are smarter than the engineers who designed it.
I used to see this in maintenance and repair and troubleshooting of equipment large and small. “Did you do this, like the book says?”
“No, that doesn’t make any sense to me.” Sometimes people don’t realize, simply because they personally don’t understand why something is done a specific way, that doesn’t mean you get to skip it. Sometimes individuals are smarter than the inventors, engineers, and architects of a design.
But that’s probably not the way to bet.
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.