Walter Williams: Wrong on Secession

Last week, Walter Williams published a column called The Real Lincoln, in which he mostly quoted editorialists to support his claim that "virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession."

If that were really true, of course, the Civil War would never have been fought. "Virtually every" political leader in Washington would have let the secessionist states go their own ways. But of course they didn't do that. Instead, they prosecuted a long, bloody war to prevent it. So that part of Williams' case simply fails.

The question remains as to the legality of secession: does the Constitution grant power to the Federal Government to prevent it? Oddly, Williams does not refer to the Constitution itself, to see whether it has something to say about the matter. Rather, Williams (quoting author Thomas DiLorenzo) only provides several quotations about the Constitution, and peoples' opinions about secession.

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Thus, the Constitution recognizes the possibility of rebellion (armed secession would seem to qualify), and gives Congress the power to suppress it.

The next question is: does secession represent a rebellion or insurrection? Webster's defines insurrection as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." So if secession is a revolt against the defined powers and authority of the Federal Government, as defined in the Constitution, then the Federal Government is granted the power to prevent it.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The secessionist states clearly violated almost every part of Section 10 -- especially that last clause -- and would by any standard be considered in a state of insurrection.

Article III, Section 3 states that Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The actions of the people in secessionist states fit this definition of treason, and it is within the powers of the Federal Government to deal with them.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Section VI clearly states that, since the Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land," the interests of individual states are inferior to those of the United States -- even if their state Constitutions say otherwise. The individual states are bound to remain part of the United States, both by their ratification of the Constitution, and also by their Oath of Affirmation to support the Constitution.

A plain reading of the Constitution not only does not support DiLorenzo's (and thus Williams's) argument, it flat-out refutes it. The powers of the Federal Government do in fact include the power to prevent secession, and Lincoln was properly discharging his duties as President when he acted against the Confederacy.

DiLorenzo's argument thus reduces to whether or not Congress and Lincoln should have allowed the seceeding states to violate the supreme Law of the Land with impunity -- which puts DiLorenzo in the awkward position of having to argue against the rule of Law.

Finally, the pro-secession case simply ignores history: a war between North and South was inevitable. It had been brewing for decades. Even had the secession been allowed to proceed, war would undoubtedly have occurred anyway, following the pattern of Kansas in the 1850s.

Williams is a smart fellow, and he says a lot of good things. But he also says some dumb things -- his "Lincoln" column being exhibit A.

Now please show me actions similar to the Brits by the federal government prior to 1860.

If you want to cite Waco, Ruby Ridge, the 16th amendment or whatever for saying the system is broken now, you'll get no kick from me. But you simply can't make that argument for the situation in 1860.

Walt

Thanks for the quote. I agree with it, and I concur that the South did not have a case by those standards.

However, that does not change the fact that I beleive that people have a right to self-governement, and that such right can not be based upon the judgement of others, or else it is not a right at all. What if during the revolution, France, Russia, Germany and a whole bunch of other nations came in and said "well guys, you've made your case, but we just don't think it rises to the level of secession." We would have said, "piss off, it is not your judgement call, it is ours". So I agree with your assesment of the South's reasons for seceeding, but it is not our judgement call, it was theirs.

Really, the slave holders should have read the Constitution and the laws a bit more carefully and they wouldn't have had their applecarts upset so badly.

First, point out ONE law forbidding secession. There isn't one. Secondly, why would they think anything else. The military leaders had been taught secession was legal at West Point, the political leaders had followed in the footsteps of northerners like Timothy Pickering, George Cabot, and Alexander Hamiliton all of who called for secession on more than one occasion. None of those men were called down for their thinking and even had the backing more than once to go through with it. But for the fortuitous ending of the War of 1812, they would have.

So before you start down this road AGAIN look at the history of the men who came BEFORE lincoln in the north

Not to get side tracked, but would you agree to secesstion if we changed the date to 2002? Looking at where freedom is now versus 140 years ago, has it gotten bad enough, and if not, just what would make the Great Walt finally allow his countrymen the right to self-determination?

From an earlier quote:

"But 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."

Are we currently under a system of Despotism? Here's what Merriam-Webster says "Despotism" is:

1 a : rule by a despot b : despotic exercise of power 2 a : a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power : ABSOLUTISM b : a despotic state

Does our ruler (Dubya) have "unlimited power"? Certianly not. Despite things that have happened politically and domestically that you might not agree with, were they done out of a design to further Despotism? Since we still have a two-party system with virtually equal power to send representatives to government, that would be no. So there is certainly no moral prerogative to secede today, as there was none to secede in 1860.

Where your argument fails is that is presupposes that a State does/did not have a right to preacefully agree to succeed and withdraw from the Union. If a State were to do so, then it wouldn't be a State any longer and none of it's acts would be in violation of any of the sections of the Constitution you cited. Your whole argument has to be premised on the initial assertion that a peaceful decision to withdraw from the Union constitutes "insurrection". I cannot accept that premise.

Nowhere does the Constitution grant the Federal Govt. the right to prevent a State from peacefully deciding to withdraw. Since all powers not specifically granted to the Fed. Govt are reserved to the States or the People, why would a State not have the right to decide to withdraw? Once a State did withdraw it is no longer a member of the Union and thus would be no more bound by the other provisions you mentioned than any other soveriegn nation. I've got to go with Professor Williams on this one.

First, point out ONE law forbidding secession.

You are a one note pony, aren't you?

The Supremacy clause in the Constitution says that it is supreme over anything in the laws of any state. Nothing in state law may withstand it. Since an ordinance or declaration of secession is a "thing" in state law, it cannot stand against the Supremacy Clause.

Not only that, the Judiciary Act of 1789 gives the power to the Supreme Court to adjudicate "civil controversies" between the states.

Was secession a civil controversy? The Supreme Court has power.

And of course, the Militia Act gives the power to the president to ensure that the laws of the United States are duly executed in all the states. If you can shoehorn secession into that, be my guest.

Walt

Thank you for your exquisitely simple refutation of a shamelessly vain assertion of the legality of state-sponsored terrorism circa 1861.

If you're not willing to critque my arguments on a non-personal intellectual basis, then I have no interest in talking to you, muleboy

The military leaders had been taught secession was legal at West Point...

Like Robert E. Lee?

"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession."

Robert E. Lee January 23, 1861

In any case, there were plenty of military officers who didn't learn anything about the legality of secession -- such as Sam Grant and Bill Sherman, just to name a couple.

Walt

By your own, dictionary-inspired standard, King George did not have absolute power, since he was bound by the Magna Carta. Next. LTS

Despotism is only one moral prerequisite. A tyrannical government that suppresses our right to self-determination is another. You're comparing apples and oranges.

All that is needed is a constitutional amendment providing for the secession of the states that request it.

Are you really that dumb? Did it ever occur to you that with the supermajority required by your thesis, you could have any policy you wanted? Why in the Hell would you secede if you could dictate to the minority any policy you wanted?

Nutty as it is, let's try out your theory: because of the difficulty in amending the Constitution, a situation could develop where 74% of the states wanted to secede, but the remaining 26% opposed it. Nobody in their right mind in the ratifying conventions would have voted to surrender that much sovereignty. Such a surrender would be not only to the Federal government, but to the whim of a small minority of other state legislatures. They were in their right minds, unlike your analysis.

All attempts to agrue secession as Constitutionally prohibited ultimately come down to needing Lincoln's hallucination that the Union preceded the Constitution. All else is window dressing.

Actually, the secession issue did need a Constitutional amendment. An amendment to prohibit it.

Those duly-elected governments had authority only insofar as they do not contradict the Constitution.

Exactly. Since the Constituion does not explicity prohibit the secession of the states, that right is reserved (under Article X) to the states, or to the people.

Nowhere does the Constitution grant the Federal Govt. the right to prevent a State from peacefully deciding to withdraw.

The Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare and the common defense. If secession is inimical to that, Congress may act.

Walt

All attempts to agrue secession as Constitutionally prohibited ultimately come down to needing Lincoln's hallucination that the Union preceded the Constitution. All else is window dressing.

?? Explain what you mean. As I understand it, the Constitution and Union were created simultaneously.

Exactly. Since the Constituion does not explicity prohibit the secession of the states, that right is reserved (under Article X) to the states, or to the people.

A right to maintain the Union is reserved by the people. So far, they -have- maintained the Union.

Walt

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.