Walter Williams: Wrong on Secession

vanity ^ | 4/3/02 | Self

[dwbh1342]

insurrection: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

secession: formal withdrawal from an organization. Source: Webster's.

Okay. So how is withdrawing from the Union not renouncing allegiance to the U.S. Government?

[WhiskeyPapa]

No, Walt, that's one man's opinion, show the actual text of the bloody document where it forbids it.

Since James Wilson was beaten half to death for supporting the Constitution, -his- opinion has more value than -yours-.

His being a Justice on the Supreme Court also makes his opinion more valuable than yours.

Walt

[PatrioticAmerican]

The civil war was about "secession" not "insurrection". There is a big difference.

[SoothingDave]

Under the Federal system, as originally designed by the Framers, the Federal Gov't was an agent of the several States. They ceded no more authority to their agent than what is written in the Constitution, and reserved all other powers to themselves.

No, Article VI quite clearly says that where the U.S. Constitution and State constitutions come into conflict, the U.S. Constitution always takes precedence. Neither is the master of the other, since they have separate spheres of influence.

Neither is the master of the other? Who created whom? The States created the Federal gov't. They had ALL the sovereignity of any other country. They created a Federal govt and granted it certain powers. Nothing in the Constitution, inded nothing in our political history, hints that this grant was permanent and irrevocable.

The ability to fire your agent and hire one which better suits your needs is fundamental.

Yes, and we can elect whomever we please to public office. But we still can't override the Constitution.

I'm afraid you didn't get my analogy. The federal govt is a creation of the States. If it does not suit their needs, they can take their full sovereignity back and try again. Didn't the Articles of Confederation mean anything? Did the Framers at the Constitutional convention commit "insurrection" against the Articles?

SD

[joebuck]

"Okay. So how is withdrawing from the Union not renouncing allegiance to the U.S. Government"

You miss the point. Withdrawing from the Union is certainly renouncing allegiance to the Govt. The point is, nothing in the Constitution prohibits this and the States are specifically given the power to do what the Constitution does not prohibit.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"inevitable battle"

I would disagree that the battle was inevitable. The North had no business in the South if the South wanted to secede and form their own union. They did form their own union, and the North invaded, hence, it is called "The War of Northern Aggression".

[teeman8r]

well said, babyface00, and the constitution allows the federal government to suppress any rebellion but does not guarantee its victory.

it is my humble opinion that the people always have the declaration of independence as their trump, but freedom always comes at a price.

good post and nice reasoning.

[Non-Sequitur]

They did form their own union, and the North invaded, hence, it is called "The War of Northern Aggression".

Yes, but they did it in an illegal manner, hence, it is also called "War of Southern Rebellion".

[Non-Sequitur]

I disagree. The 10th Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to create a state, combine states, split states, or to adjust their borders in any way whatsoever, then it is clear that matters pertaining to the status of a state was a power reserved to the United States. That would include withdrawing from the Union.

[r9etb]

If the concept of peaceful secession was "never in play" it was because Lincoln said he would never allow it in the first place.

Henry Clay's compromise of 1850 is credited with averting civil war, and for holding the Union together.

Given that Lincoln wasn't elected until 10 years later, one cannot blame him for the violence. It was probably inevitable.

[ravinson]

Or, another question is why did Lincoln NOT free the slaves in 1861 at the onset of his war?

That's very simple: (a) he didn't believe that he had the Constitutional authority to free all slaves; (b) he didn't have control of the slaveholders in the rebellious states; and (c) he believed that the rebellion had to be successfully put down before abolition was feasible. Nevertheless, he instituted or agreed to numerous interim anti-slavery measures long before issuing the Emanicipation Proclamation. (See Abraham Lincoln's Evolving Stance On Slavery From 1861-1863)

Lincoln very skillfully walked a fine line as a pragmatic abolitionist between the radical Republicans on one side and the conservative Northerners on the other, and I don't see how anyone can seriously question his effectiveness in ending slavery in the final analysis.

[r9etb]

The civil war was about "secession" not "insurrection". There is a big difference.

Only if secession is not an act of insurrection.

[TopHat1948]

The Declaration of Independence is just that--a statement of the reasons we separated ourselves from British rule. It is not a constitution and does not establish rules for governance. While it's value to America as a statement of principle cannot be understated, it does not rise to the level of the Constitution in determining the rules under which our government operates. I would refer you to the statement of Daniel Webster about the idea of secession/nullification. He correctly points out that a Constitution which allowed unilateral secession is not a constitution at all --it is anarchy. Lincoln, who revered the Declaration of Independence, simply pointed to the preamble of the constitution ("We the People") and argued that the "states" had not entered into the Constitution, rather, the people had. (the Articles of Confederation refer to an agreement between states while the Constitution refers to the consent of the people). And, Lincoln argued, that since the people had never voted to secede, secession was unconstitutional. I was upset by Williams clearly unwarranted assertion that Lincoln's election "backed the south into a corner." What Williams, and I assume DiLorenzo (I have not yet read the book) fail to address is how Lincoln would have governed if there had been no secession. Does anyone know what the composition of the Congress during Lincoln's term would have been without secession? I have read that it would have been heavily Democrat. I suspect if the southern states had stayed in the Union, Lincoln would have been regarded as an earnest failure--much like some of his predecessors.

[SoothingDave]

Since the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to create a state, combine states, split states, or to adjust their borders in any way whatsoever, then it is clear that matters pertaining to the status of a state was a power reserved to the United States. That would include withdrawing from the Union.

I think you read too much into this. The powers given to the federal govt for this purpose are to prevent chicanery and to settle disputes among the states. It is to prevent, Vermont, for example, from deciding it wants to be 10 states instead of one, thereby gaining more representatives and senators. The point is that these powers ceded are to address the representation of a state in the union.

The States never gave to the federal gov't the power to keep them bound to a union they no longer want.

SD

[Liberty Tree Surgeon]

His being a Justice on the Supreme Court also makes his opinion more valuable than yours.

And here I thought all men were created equal. Tell me, is your opinion more valuable than mine?

Not that it matters, since I'm not asking your opinion, I'm asking you to post the text of the Constitution that expressly forbids a State from opting out of the Union. If it existed, there'd be no need for opinions, or self-serving SCOTUS rulings. But it doesn't exist, so you keep posting all these quotes by people who were trying to wish it into existence.

Are you sure he wasn't beaten half to death by a crowd of people who'd read the Framer's own views on the matter of secession, State's Rights, and a host of other things this clown may not have grasped.

LTS

[r9etb]

I would disagree that the battle was inevitable. The North had no business in the South if the South wanted to secede and form their own union. They did form their own union, and the North invaded, hence, it is called "The War of Northern Aggression".

I refer you to the history of Bloody Kansas (1854).

A look at the map reveals another 1500 miles of land west of Kansas, chock full of resources and fertile fields.

To suppose that the conflict that actually did visit itself upon Kansas would not repeat itself further west, is ludicrous. The war was inevitable, and had been so long before that (consider, e.g., the Missouri Compromise of 1820).

[stainlessbanner]

Effectiveness? Destroying many states and killing 600000 lives? Yes, in the end slavery was ended - but surely there were more effective ways. Don't think Lincoln's way is the right way!

The lingering question is why he did not take the moral high ground and free the slaves in 1861. However, I do not want to continue this debate here - let's save it for a "lincoln" post. We'll focus on secession in this forum.

[marron]

The 10th ammendment is one of the most important ammendments, in terms of guaranteeing our liberty. It is an extension of the concept of the separation of powers. Executive, judicial, legislative, on the one hand; federal, state, local on the other.

It is essential that we resurrect the 10th ammendment, and begin to carve out a wider area of state, and citizen's, sovereignty.

But this is not an exercise in high school civics. The purpose of all this is not a more perfect debating society, but to define and defend the liberty of the individual.

Not the state.

And state government, and local government, can be as dangerous to an individual's freedom as can the federal. More so; the raw face of government power is more likely to visit you in the form of a sheriff's deputy than an FBI agent.

It was linking the 10th ammendment to slavery and the defense of the old Jim Crow laws that killed it, made it impossible to defend. And continueing to tie it to those issues only does damage if you believe in the 10th and if you believe in freedom.

Remember, states' rights is not freedom, the use of state laws to violate the constitutional rights of your fellow citizens is not freedom. Freedom is freedom.

[Non-Sequitur]

Sorry, but I don't think that you read enough into it. The Constitution gives power to Congress to decide anything at all concerning the status of a state. The Constitution nowhere allows a state to act in an arbitrary manner when the interests of another state can be involved. Why does it make sense to believe that the Constitution would give Congress authority to decide on every matter affecting the status of a state - except for arbitrary secession? Why would it make sense for the Constitution to forbid states from acting in any arbitrary manner where the interests of another state may be affected - except for arbitrary secession? You see that right to arbitrary secession only because you want to see that right and only by ignoring the rest of the Constitution in the process.

[Question_Assumptions]

You should send Walter Williams an email with this essay. You should be able to find his email address on the web.