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.
Simple, Congress has the power to mediate disputes between states of the Union, it's part of the Contract if you will. Seccession would be withdrawing from the Contract, due to previous violations by the other party or parties to it. Once a contract has been violated by one party, the other party has no obligation to uphold it. The North always wanted to have it's cake and eat it too. The Constitution also says that no state can be created out of another without that state's permission. West Virginia was created out of Virginia, without its permission. Virgina was still a state of the Union, if one also asserts that the Constitution forbides secession. You can't have Viginia be a state, and thus Lee and other be traitors, while at the same time it be OK to rip W. Va. away from Va.
Walt, no person, no state, no country has the right, to compel a behavior on another. If your statement here is correct, and 49 states chose to seceed, and Wyoming wanted to exercise its right to maintain the union, then the union would have to stay. Conversely, if Wyoming wanted to leave the other 49, it would be wrong to compel Wyoming's allegiance. What of the concept of free association?
"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. "
is generally quoted as supporting the right of secession. The argument is that since secession is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution, the power to secede is reserved by the States.
I cannot see how you believe that the cited articles address this option.
Where in the Constitution is such a power granted? By the tenth amendment, the Federal government only has such powers as explicitly granted, while the states only have such restrictions as explicitly laid out. IOW, for the feds, if it's not expressly permitted, it's forbidden, while for the states, if it's not expressly forbidden it is permitted. Within the limits of their own Constitutions of course.
The Constitution created a stronger federal government than existed under the Aricles of Confederation, but not an all powerfull one, rather one strictly limited in its powers and purpose.
Where in the Constitution is that?
I don't believe it has such a power. The pre-amble states the reasons for establishing the Constitution, it does not grant powers to the federal government, any more than the "pre-amble" to the second amendment restricts the right to keep and bear arms to state militias. By your arguement, Congress can do anything they darm well please, as long as they sprinkle on some "general welfare" pixiedust, much as they attempt, and usually get away with, regarding the interstate commerce clause. If you are correct we do not a have a Republic, but rather a few hundred dictators meeting in the Capital building.
If a government has become abusive, then the people have the right to dissolve themselves of that union. One reason the government has grown so big is that they are under no threat from the states.
However, if a civil authority is being abusive and rebels against a government so it can pursue its abuses, then natural law kicks in and the fed's have to step in and protect the people's rights. That is the debate over the civil war.
I am not going to take a position here but the justification that there is no reason for succession is wrong on the norths part. Vice versa, it is wrong to think that a state can leave for any reason.
What is the right reason? well thats the debate
Which was provided for by the Constitution in at least a couple of places. Strictly speaking the Confederacy allowed humans to be held in bondage, it held none itself. The federal government however did hold the majority of the people of the states which wished to seceed in a sort of bondage, didn't it?
While speed is an admirable quality, effectiveness is better. The way it was done, in violation of the Constitution itself, in several areas, was not a good thing. Something like taking the slaves with compensation and then freeing them, would have been much better. Besides Lincoln was not all that interested in freeing the slaves, he only freed those in the states "in rebellion" but did not free those in other states, such as Maryland, (and Kentucky ?? IIRC) that were not then "in rebellion". This is the the clearest indication that his interest was in preserving the Union, not freeing the slaves.
In my opinion the slaves would have been freed in the next few decades anyway, as they became uneconomical. They were likely already uneconomical before the Secession War ever began, but certainly the handwriting was on the wall.
No it doesn't, follows Art. 1 Sec. 10:
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 Controul 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.
---
You may be thinking of this from Art. 2 Sec. 8.
Congress shall have the power ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
---
Secession need not be insurection. Sucession is an act of the duely elected government of a state. Insurrection is an attempt to overthrow such a government, or that of the United States. Sucession in not an attempt to overthrow the government being seceeded from, just an attempt to not be part of it any longer.
Once a state seceeded, it would no longer be a state of the Union, and it would not be bound by anything in the Constitution.
Actually when they rebelled they were not a nation, nor even 13 separate nations. Separation (secession?) did not occur for over a year after the rebellion started. The Declaration of Independence was an act of secession however. The difference however was the the 13 states/colonies had no legal sovereignty before separtion, the states of the Union are legally sovereign, in all but a limited number of areas laid out by the Constitution. You'll note that the list of limitations on the states is much shorter than the list of powers granted to the Congress, which is still quite finite. Neither the limitation nor the powers would seem to prohibit, nor give Congress the power to prohibit, peacefull secession. (The shooting didn't start until after secession in 1861, and was initially more a case of local overzealousness (by Citidal cadets in at least one case) and by a local militia commander in the critical one rather than an act of official policy of the state in question, South Carolina, or of the Confederacy. The states all seceded separately, as individual acts of their legislatures, spread out over some time. Lee for instance was serving in the Federal Army and stationed in Texas (San Antonio) when Texas seceeded, but he did not make his decision to turn down command of the Union Army, and take command of the Confederate one, until his home state of Virginia seceded some time later.
BTW, I would like to see the source and context of that January 1861 quote from Lee.
Horse puckey. The events at Ft. Sumpter actually showed that both the state of South Carolina, and the Confederacy, were not in full control of their local militias, which understandably were not happy about a foreign military presense in their harbor, one that refused to leave when asked. Why would the Confederacy *want* to go to war with the Union, if secession could be done peacefully? They knew they stood little chance of beating the Northern Armies, since many of the leaders had at one time or another been officers in the Army. Once the shooting started, they knew the only chance they had to preserve the Confederacy was to win big early, and then negotiate an end to the war, perhaps with help from the British and French, and they almost pulled it off.
I doubt that you would have the same patience if it were you or your loved ones being held in bondage. Also, you can't credibly argue with Lincoln's effectiveness. He was sworn in after most of the Confederate states had seceded and before his term was over he had managed to suppress the insurrection and get the 13th Amendment through Congress and on the road to ratification by the states.
The way it was done, in violation of the Constitution itself, in several areas, was not a good thing.
Name one Constitutional violation involved in emancipation. And tell me, if it were you or your loved ones being held in bondage, would you bend the Constitution as far as you could to free them?
Something like taking the slaves with compensation and then freeing them, would have been much better.
As I noted in Post #275, the Confederates placed a value of $3 billion on their slaves -- equivalent to $58 billion in current dollars and $3 trillion as a percentage of GDP.
Lincoln was not all that interested in freeing the slaves, he only freed those in the states "in rebellion" but did not free those in other states, such as Maryland, (and Kentucky ?? IIRC) that were not then "in rebellion". This is the the clearest indication that his interest was in preserving the Union, not freeing the slaves.
As I noted, Lincoln was instrumental in the passage of the 13th Amendment as soon as possible, but he didn't think he had the Constitutional authority to abolish slavery by Presidential proclamation and he knew that he could not free slaves under Confederate control unless and until the war effort was successful -- and the success of the war hinged in part on keeping the border slave states from joining the rebellion. Nevertheless, in early 1862 he signed laws (a) pledging financial aid to any state that undertook emancipation and (b) abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. Numerous other military measures which helped to free slaves as Confederate areas were liberated also preceded the Emancipation Proclamation.
In my opinion the slaves would have been freed in the next few decades anyway, as they became uneconomical. They were likely already uneconomical before the Secession War ever began, but certainly the handwriting was on the wall.
As noted, the Confederates put a high value on slavery and also put a high value on maintaining white supremacy in the South. You'll have to explain how that would change in "a few decades" to lend any credibility to your assertion. Also, I'd bet that you'd be willing to take up arms to avoid serving even "a few decades" under whip and chain.
That would be a good point, if true. However what the Constitution really says is:
(Art. IV) Section. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
-----
This clearly indicates that states have territorial sovereignty. The Congress has powers over matters affecting mulitiple states, and admission of new states, but not absolute powers and may not act without the consent of the states concerned.
Please. The early parts of an exponential growth curve always look fairly constant when plotted along with the latter parts. It's due to the fractal nature of the exponential curve, that is it looks the same at all time scales. Try plotting just say 1850-1900 and see if that doesn't look very similar, ignoring specific events liek the 1860s war, WW-I and most especially WW-II.
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.