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.
Other than a typo regarding the name, what part of history am I wrong about?
I, unlike others here, would never attack you on a typo. I am not a woman.
Ape Linkum had set this up from the beginning. Do you really not know of that?
Sources:
U.S. National Park Service
U.S. Library of Congress.
The Southron aristocracy was perfectly willing to start a war to get their way in 1861. Suppose that they had been allowed to peacefully depart. The fun would've REALLY gotten underway after that. They would probably DEMAND territory from either the Western US, or from Mexico, on pain of war. The former would start a war between the Confederacy and the Union; the latter probably would have kicked off World War I some forty to fifty years ahead of schedule.
Sure, and Poland made Hitler invade.
I will simply cite Article I, Section 10, and demand payment in gold or silvr coin.
That is one case I would really like to see :O)
Both are agencies of the tyrannical FedGov. Of course they'd make such scurrilous claims. ;-)
Considering that serious friction had been building between Free and Slave states since before the Missouri Compromise of 1820(!!), and militant secessionist movements were well established by the time of Clay's Compromise of 1850, I fail to see how Mr. Lincoln can be blamed for anything but the inevitable fight.
Note, BTW, that most of the secessionists went about their business in a rather cowardly fashion -- during the iterregnum between Lincoln's election and his inauguration. In hopes, apparently, that Abe would accept it as a fait accompli.
So what would you (or DiLorenzo) advise Lincoln to do? Send a note to the Confederates saying he wanted to end slavery in America without bloodshed like the British, et. al did and expect that to convince the fire-eaters down South who put a value of $3,000,000,000 on their slaves?
The Brits paid slaveholders about £200 per slave, but they could get away that cheaply because the British slaveholders were few far between -- spread out in Colonies throughout the world. The $3 billion value placed on the slaves by the Confederates is about equivalent to $57 billion in current dollars, but as a percentage of the GDP it would be about $3 trillion in current dollars. How far do you think Lincoln would have gotten in Congress with a proposal to pay the slaveholders that kind of money?
You may not LIKE it, but your dislike does not prove a priori that the arguments are wrong.
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.