 Excellent point! |
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.
My, my, my, having a bad night are we? Am I supposed to be afraid now?
Your post (except above) was a wonderful addition to the thread. You're dead on.
I don't believe it has such a power.
Yes, it does; see Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
Jefferson Davis cited the --exact same language-- copied into the constitution of the so-called CSA in maintaining that the federal government could coerce the states in the matter of conscription.
Walt
Good question. Why not give peace a chance, so to speak? Why go to war over Sumter which posed no real threat, militarily or economically, to the confederacy? Why go against the warnings of your own secretary of state when he warned that attacking the fort would be fatal? Was Davis stupid, desperate or both?
The likely reason is that Davis needed a war, badly. He was president of a seven state confederacy with no chance of thriving in the shadow of the much larger North. He needed the other slaveholding states to get off the fence and into the fold. Specifically, he needed Virginia, with the largest population of any slave-holding state and an industrial base larger than the seven original confederate states combined. But he knew that they wouldn't come in unless forced to choose sides, and the only way to do that is by provoking the North into military action. Davis banked that if he could bring in the 8 remaining slave-holding states then he could fight and win a war against the remaining United States. As it turned out, he only got half the remaining states and he lost the war, independence, the whole nine yards. Lincoln didn't kill the confederacy, it committed suicide.
Do you have anything to support this?
Walt, no person, no state, no country has the right, to compel a behavior on another.
So you deny any laws at all? Are you an anarchist?
If we don't have laws, we are back in the state of nature where life is nasty, brutish and short.
"Nasty, brutish and short."
That is as good a description of the life of the so-called CSA as any I've heard.
Walt
| Excellent point! |
They didn't say that secession was illegal, they said "[t]heir right to do so is now being decided by wager of battle."
Well, you've a quote here but you don't say where it came from.
That is the fly in the buttermilk on this history business. You can't just make things up, you have to build a case in the record.
And in the Prize Cases, the Court ruled that the president was authorized by the Militia Act to put down insurrrection against a state or the United States.
See how it works?
Walt
Excellent point!
The Constitution is the supreme civil authority; no state law or document can withstand the power of the COnstitution.
Walt
1) The Militia could not lawfully be called forth because NO laws were violated by the secessions. NONE. There was NO LAW against secession.
Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, civil controversies between the states are to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
Under the Militia Act of 1792 as amended in 1795, the President is authorized to call out the militia of the several states to ensure that the laws are duly executed.
You can look it up.
Walt
Yeah, that's a bad deal. And now the state of California wants to outlaw people having .50 cal machine guns. Bad timing. A .50 is just what you need for giant ants.
Walt
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.