Posted on 04/03/2002 9:52:50 AM PST by r9etb
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.
One can see why: the Constitution itself does not support his case.
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.
The rights and restrictions on the States are defined in Section 10:
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.
Article VI says, in part:
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.
And this means what? Am I to be cowed by your invoking one man's name? Lee was a great man, a gentleman, honorable, etc., but if he failed to read the Constitution, that was his error. That makes you in good company, I suppose.
LTS
How so? Look. You just don't beleive in the principles of the declaration of independence. You just don't. Either you believe that people have a right to choose their own government, or you don't. Either you beleive that people have a right to impose government upon those who do not want it, or you don't. I know where I stand.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Who is to say that secession is inimical to that?
If you deny that Congress itself must not decide, then you are advocating anarchy.
It might surprise you to know that Jefferson Davis cited that EXACT language (identical in the consistution of the so-called seceded states) in saying that Congress could coerce the states in the matter of conscription.
Was Davis wrong?
Walt
History has proven that the Confederate mentality was as grossly naive as it was morally bankrupt, but that won't stop the Confederate glorifiers (who curiously seem to be all Southerners who rely heavily on rednecks for their financial support) from trying to blame Abe Lincoln for every government abuse that has occurred since 1860. It saddens me to see Walter Williams eroding his credentials as a fine free market economist by buying into the Confederate glorifiers' delusional fantasies, but no one is perfect -- not even Abe Lincoln.
What none of these Lincoln bashers ever bothers to tell us is, though, is how they would have orchestrated the abolition of slavery quicker than he did.
And that right is outlined where? The Preamble says a lot of things, but it is merely that, a reason for creating the document, not to be confused with the laws within the document.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but has anyone ever challenged any law by saying it violated the Preamble? I'm thinking not.
LTS
Or, another question is why did Lincoln NOT free the slaves in 1861 at the onset of his war?
And this means what?
It means you disagree with Robert E. Lee.
I can't imagine why your judgement is better than his, or that of Jefferson Davis, who clearly stated Congress could coerce the states.
How could you know better than they?
Walt
Why does secession if done peacefully, consitute insurrection? The Constitution does not prohibit the states from withdrawing and thus that power is specifically left to the states. If the States peacefully decide to succeed, then the US Govt had no right to use force to prevent it in the first place.
And that right is outlined where?
Both the nineth and tenth amendments reserve the right to the people to maintain the Union.
Walt
If you want to dispute the book, first read the book.
Our first act as a nation was to REBEL against the authority of the Crown, not secede. Please get your terms straight.
As the events at Ft. Sumpter show, the south had no intention of "peacefully withdrawing." Indeed, it was probably never in the cards -- Henry Clay's compromises (1820, 1833, 1850) were all about avoiding a civil war.
At any rate, they expected a fight, prepared for a fight, picked a fight, got a fight, and lost it. The concept of "peaceful secession" was never in play.
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.