Parting Company

Townhall.com ^ | November 28, 2012 | Walter Williams

[Kaslin]

For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

Since Barack Obama's re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitions for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let's look at the secession issue.

At the 1787 constitutional convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, "No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland 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."

There's more evidence seen at the time our Constitution was ratified. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution would have never been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.

The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. 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 -- that 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."

[INVAR]

Despite how much you may fear Obama, he does not have the stomach to launch a conflagration in this country. Neither does anyone else.

I fear you are woefully naive here.

History teaches that every Marxist regime NEEDS and actually INSTIGATES bloodshed on a massive scale in order to solidify desperation among the populace to accept measures that under any other circumstance - would be opposed. Think Holocaust. Think Holdomor.

Demonize the opposition enemy and blame him for the misery the Marxist creates is part and parcel how they do business. The ensuing bloodbath is always welcomed and used as a catalyst to create an iron-fisted totalitarian police state, accepted by the masses.

A shooting war here is inevitable if anyone wants to attempt to hold onto what wealth and liberty they have left. Guarantee it.

It will either be that, or hordes of American Conservative Christians willingly walking to boxcars for death/re-education camps.

That too - is an historical fact under Marxist/Socialist regimes.

[5thGenTexan]

It would make much more sense to repeal the 17Th Amendment.

I second that! Jefferson was sooooo right on his explanation of why the Senates was appointed by State legislatures. Their lust for power wold force the Senate to keep federal expansion at bay.

[Windflier]

The Union side might think the secessionist side believes that, and that the mere threat or bluff of force would make them fall back in line.

I said there'd be all kinds of smoke and hot air out of DC if one or more states decide to secede. But that's all it'll be, and people in the secessionist states will know it.

No one is going to launch a hot war of blood and destruction over any state seceding.

[Wpin]

“We’re free to do anything we want except leave. That’s not real freedom.”

We are not even that free...we do not have any real semblance of freedom. The government has removed any pretense of safeguarding our rights such as the right to life, right to worship, right to bear arms, etc. This is an illegal government forcing it’s will upon people who no longer wish to participate in their tyranny. That will not go away...it is growing.

[Lancey Howard]

Absolute nonsense. Mr. Williams needs to read some American history. Even Robert E. Lee saw secession as revolution, not as constitutional.

Williams never said anything about secession being a "constitutional" issue - - quite the opposite. He said there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. And he only said that because there are some morons who DO proclaim that secession is "unconstitutional". I've even seen some freepers (who should know better) make that claim.

You should work on your reading comprehension before accusing Williams of spouting "absolute nonsense". I bet Williams would agree with Robert E. Lee about secession being a "revolution", but that doesn't make anything else Williams said untrue or "absolute nonsense".

FRegards,
LH

[EternalVigilance]

"Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole."

-- George Washington, Farewell Address

[INVAR]

Or put another way:

It wouldn’t take much force for the Marxist to subdue a nation’s Constitutional machinery. The actions would be accompanied by the usual propaganda. The Marxist would be taking action to impose its own interests, and to deprive the rights of American citizens [in the name of fairness] to enact lawlessness. The state politicians responsible for resisting Acts of Socialism would be cast as evil, a usurping minority who misused the state government to deprive the citizens of the rights owed them by the evils of Capitalism. Remaking the nation’s governmental machinery was quick, clean and very popular.

Look - the nation is gone, and going over the cliff into fiscal, cultural and national oblivion, period. You are welcome to deceive yourself and pretend otherwise, but it’s not going to change the math or the certainty of the consequences about to unfold upon this nation.

Any state or people wanting to prevent their demise, would be wise and prudent to separate from the inevitable train wreck and totalitarian nightmare that is hurtling at us at the speed of gravity.

For when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It’s either that or death at the hand of tyrants.

[sergeantdave]

Thank you, Sir Knight, for the imagery. If I’m destined to burn up, I’ll be front-loaded with .50 cal belts, potassium nitrate and claymore mines. You’re welcome.

[usconservative]

Add Educational to that list. I didn't know three states had written into their own Constitutions that they could secede at any time, nor that the Constitution didn't prohibit secession.

Excellent article, bump back to the top.

[Skepolitic]

The status quo has plenty of states, pretty much the same ones as before.

[KrisKrinkle]

“The status quo has plenty of states...”

That’s the point. The Federal Government is pretty much nothing in and of itself. It’s the will of the States to put up opposition using the Federal Government as their agent.

What took place in the 1860’s wasn’t the War Between Lincoln and Davis or the War Between the Federal Government and the Confederate Government, it was the War Between the States. People don’t seem to get that.

[SierraWasp]

Somewhere around this home office of mine I have a certificate from Walter E. Williams granting me absolution from ever having anything to do with slavery!!!

[tubebender]

Good old Walter E Williams who also declared he had absolute power and domination over his wife...

[Impy]

The confederacah shall rise again!!!!! Damn Yankees!

[Carry_Okie]

Peaceful secession might not have been mentioned in the Constitution, but insurrection clearly was. Once the South fired on Ft. Sumpter, they gave the Congress the power to do something about it. From Article I, Section 8:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

[Clinging Bitterly]

btrl

[Windflier]

The state politicians responsible for passing an Act of Secession would be cast as traitors, a usurping minority who misused the state government to deprive the state’s citizens of the rights guaranteed them by the US Constitution. Retaking the state’s governmental machinery would be quick, clean and very popular.

You paint a picture of a rogue state legislature which moves to secede without the popular support of the people of their state. I assure you, secession won't happen in any state without the people of that state demanding it.

If the feds should decide to arrest a state legislature for treason, they'd have to do it over the dead bodies of the citizenry. Again - the will to mount a campaign of death and destruction to prevent secession of any state, does not exist.

[Windflier]

History teaches that every Marxist regime NEEDS and actually INSTIGATES bloodshed on a massive scale in order to solidify desperation among the populace to accept measures that under any other circumstance - would be opposed. Think Holocaust. Think Holdomor.

Think armed population. There will be no outright bloody suppression of the people unless the Marxists figure out how to take our guns. Good luck with that.

The right to gun ownership and self defense is ingrained in our culture. It can't be undone with laws, edicts, or orders. It can only be undone through force, and there isn't a force large enough to accomplish it.

[INVAR]

I know EXACTLY how they are going to accomplish both gun confiscation and criminalization of The Won’s political enemies.

(Please remember the REASON for Fast & Furious)

With ObamaCare having set the precedent for the IRS to empty bank and financial accounts for non-compliance of Government edicts, (not to mention confiscation of property) - when the time comes for this regime to criminalize gun owners who refuse to comply with gun bans, they will impoverish the lot of them and make very public examples of those they target for punishment.

It will create a climate of fear.

A gun is useless in the hands of a people who do not have the willpower to use them. And breaking such a people into submission is easily done through impoverishment, isolation, criminalization and fear.

You watch. It’s coming. The signs of what they are going to do are all there.

You can pretend otherwise - but when it starts going down - you are going to be in a state of bewilderment wondering why no one is rising up against the blatant tyranny.

[elkfersupper]

Well, since there aren’t many elk in Oklahoma, and if we don’t hear “We did it a different way back home” whining out of you,, we may let you stay!

You want me.

I have a record of defeat of liberals and central planning schemes at the ballot box.