Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Walter Williams: Wrong on Secession
vanity ^ | 4/3/02 | Self

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: secession; walterwilliamslist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 741-752 next last
IMHO
1 posted on 04/03/2002 9:52:50 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: r9etb; RJayneJ
An excellent post, IMHO. I nominate this post for Essay of the Week.
2 posted on 04/03/2002 9:55:06 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Although I would think that the right of secession would be consistent with the founding principles of the USA, especially those mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, I must admit (reluctantly) that you make a very compelling argument to support the idea that secession is unconstitutional.
3 posted on 04/03/2002 9:56:43 AM PST by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb, wardaddy
I have always asserted this. If it takes approval of the Fed Congress to change a state boundary how in the world would it be constitutional for a state to drop out of the union?
4 posted on 04/03/2002 9:58:35 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
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.

Will that be a first class ticket to London, or coach?

Ultimately, the point is moot. The Constitution was dead before the ink was dry. Might always makes right.

5 posted on 04/03/2002 10:02:59 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I also look at it as such. If secession was constitutional and states could drop out any time they wish, This would be a continent of MANY nations. What if the President a state chose didn't win? They leave the Union and make him the president of their new nation. There must be compromise between states for this nation to flourish.
6 posted on 04/03/2002 10:04:13 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Great essay, I am going to have to go over it again a few times. This thing ought to be published.
7 posted on 04/03/2002 10:12:54 AM PST by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb;shuckmaster
Not a very convincing argument.
8 posted on 04/03/2002 10:17:32 AM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Since the colonies had an established form of government when the DOI was signed, it would seem to imply that the DOI trumps the Constitution.

It states:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, ...

... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Does the Constitution somehow eliminate the "Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"?
9 posted on 04/03/2002 10:17:59 AM PST by babyface00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Walter Williams list
Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.
10 posted on 04/03/2002 10:18:10 AM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
barf
11 posted on 04/03/2002 10:24:18 AM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babyface00
Does the Constitution somehow eliminate the "Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"?

The DOI is not a basis for government, but merely a proclamation of causes for insurrection. As with the Feds in the Civil War, the British Government was well within its rights to respond to the insurrection.

As the Constitution itself puts it, and by ratification the States affirm: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Groundrules for alteration are spelled out within the Constitution itself. Abolition of the Constitution is not even mentioned within the document itself, and it's hard to see how it could be.

12 posted on 04/03/2002 10:26:49 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
There is actually a huge contridiction in the constitution. Congress has the right to take action to put down a rebellion, but the 2nd amendment is specifically designed so the people can be armed should a rebellion be necessary.
13 posted on 04/03/2002 10:30:05 AM PST by sharktrager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner; Constitution Day; 4ConservativeJustices
CONFEDERATE SECESSIONIST BUMP!!!
14 posted on 04/03/2002 10:30:21 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
The DOI is not a basis for government, but merely a proclamation of causes for insurrection.

Excellent point. Additionally, the Declaration is expressly written to detail the transgressions of the King, and outline why the colonists felt they had earned the right (by the King's abdication of his responsibilities to govern fairly) to form a new Union.

The actual government of the new Union had not been defined as yet.

15 posted on 04/03/2002 10:32:25 AM PST by Cable225
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dasboot
barf

I'd be much more impressed with your emetic response if you'd provided some rational chunks to go along with your mindless bile.

16 posted on 04/03/2002 10:32:44 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: babyface00
Does the Constitution somehow eliminate the "Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"?

In natural law, no.

In U.S. law however, there is no right to -legal- uniateral secession.

Walt

17 posted on 04/03/2002 10:33:20 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Wrong guy TA, I'm not a neo-seccessionist. I'm just a rabid reactionary about Southern heritage and South bashing. I won't refight the war. Others will of course....go to find in forum and look for Whiskey Papa...the premier Yankee apologist/promoter.

regards

18 posted on 04/03/2002 10:33:27 AM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Too bad the Declaration of Independence is lost on you.
19 posted on 04/03/2002 10:34:25 AM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free the USA
Not a very convincing argument

Perhaps you'd care to provide some details to back that up?

20 posted on 04/03/2002 10:34:29 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 741-752 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson