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.
Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union ... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
On the face of it, it appears to be a strong support of the right if secession. However, look at the quote in it's entirity:
"The alternatives between which we are to choose [are fairly stated]: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter and hold the former at arm's length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war."
Looked at in context then it is clear that the meaning that DiLorenzo puts into the quote bears no resemblence to what Jefferson meant.
So if you want to wave Dr. Williams' and DiLorenzo's shoddy scholarship for the world to see and claim victory then go right ahead. Those who have actually done some reading on the subject have already seen through their act.
The constituion does not have to state the Union shall exist in perpetuity. The Perpetual Union existed prior to the Constitution, by agreement of the States. Half the states you mentioned in post 21 seemed to agree with that about 1860.
Wow. That's the dangdest rationalization I have ever heard. I guess we better let the folks in the anti-abortion movement know that they are revolutionaries attacking the Constitution and giving states like California an excuse to secede from the Union.
I realize these guys don't need any help finding something to discuss on this issue, but I thought I'd throw a little extra in anyway.
Governments have responsibilities. If the people of the state detail a government with the responsibility to secede, then I don't think the federal government has the moral authority to prevent it by force...but it can and will use illicit force to hold its power.
In a free society, that which is not forbidden is legal. Contrary to your assertions, which apply to those states which choose to remain in the Union, there is nothing in the Constitution which forbids a state from taking the step to secede.
Frankly, I'm having trouble keeping up with all that's going on in this thread. When I first saw it at work it only had about 20 posts. (I lurk a little but don't post from work. A matter of job security.) When I left for home it had almost 200. I'm playing catch up.
Excellent points.
"Legality", schmegality....
As far as I am concerned, the spirit of the Constitution is a spirit of "inaleinable rights....endowed by our Creator" which must be protected by any means necessary, including "secession", in whatever form that takes.
Hence, the second amendment.
I don't know that you can govern someone who does not consent, even if only under duress, to be governed by you. I think maybe you have to let them do as they please--or kill them.
Didn't the duly-elected government of the states and of the people say "No" to secession, and therefore was that not as close to "the will of the people" as you could get?
Did not the states explicitly forfiet or waive that right when they entered into a Perpetual Union under the Articles of Confederation prior to the establishment of the Constitution?
The issue of secession was settled in 1776, when our Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence:
"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...."
"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."
Do it now small squid.
The "tyranny" was "Slave Power," as it was decried in nearly every newspaper in the North and West United States. The same tyranny that sought--but failed--to wrest Kansas in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The same Tyranny that sought, in the wake of the Dred Scott decision, to force a repeal of every law limiting slavery anywhere in the U.S., and allow slave ownership to flourish everywhere--which the vast majority of the people did NOT want.
It was that same tyranny, represented by the Democrat Party then as it is today, that put forth an unpopular but politically powerful lobby to try to tear out the very roots of this nation's founding.
Those tyrants were foiled by the election of Abraham Lincoln, who although he promised them their rights local to those few states they controlled wouldn't be abridged, nevertheless swore just as strongly that slavery would not expand one more inch into the new territories. Because of that fact, they rebelled.
PURELY, SOLELY, ONLY FOR THE CONTINUATION AND PROTECTION OF SLAVERY AND FOR NO OTHER REASON.
Revisionist historians like the fanciful dreamers here on FR may rant all they want, but that is immutable FACT.
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.