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.
You're tacitly claiming that the claims of the southern states had the same moral status as those of the colonies. There are good arguments to be made to support that position. There are also valid arguments against it.
But we're not talking about the Declaration. We're talking about the Constitution, and whether it gives the Federal Government the right to suppress insurrection. It does.
Williams is right; you're wrong.
Not only does the actual text of the Constitution prohibit unilateral state secession, but the laws made in pursuance also do so. Specifically, the Militia Act of 1972 gives the president the clear power to enter any state and ensure that United States courts are operating.
Oddly enough, Jefferson Davis would have heartily agreed with your article.
He held that language in the constitution of the so-called CSA that was identical to the Costitution's language gave Congess the power to act in the common defense of the government, thus giving the lie to the complete state sovereignty that the so-called seceded states claimed to have. How about that?
See "Battle Cry of Freedom", by James McPherson, p. 433.
Wakt
Walt
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
...or you don't. I do. You obviously don't. There is no just philosophy that empowers men to govern over those who do not consent to be governed by them.
That's right. CONGRESS. Not one man using an outdated Whiskey Rebellion Act to suppress an entire half of the nation. Or to abscond $2,000,000 from the US Treasury without the approval of Congress. Wait a minute!! Why didn't he ask Congress you say? Congress was out of session convienently while this was going on!! You'd think that something as important as going to war would have pushed lincoln to recall Congress, but of course he didn't for an additional 3 months!! Oh, BTW he also ordered the building of three ships and the purchase of additional four for the Navy. That's under the power of Congress as well
lincoln overstepped his bounds, destroyed the Republic, oh, but he kept the union together!! That's important, I guess..
Let's see
1)unconstitutional use of military tribunals
2)first federal taxation established, 1863
3)expanding the power of the executive branch to lengths unheard of before in the history of the US
4)helped to lay the groundwork for the public education system
just some of his great achievements, not to mention the war crimes committed during the War of Southern Independence.
Feel free to enlightn us.
And it still doesn't apply!!
Webster's defines insurrection as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government."
What happened was not a revolt against civil authority, it was civil authority, duly elected by the people of the States, voting to go their own way. The "established government" of each state decided to dissolve its link to the Federal government. To claim that a duly elected assembly could not vote to secede would indicate that the work of a similar group eighty years before, when voting to join that union, is invalid. Do any of you actually think that the States would have joined the union if they thought they'd never be able to dissolve it? Not a chance, and that's why there's no language preventing it in the document!
The rights and restrictions on the States are defined in Section 10 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.
Since Article 10 in no place states a State cannot vote to leave the union, once it does, it's no longer a State, so violations of Article 10 become moot.
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.
See above. If you've voted to leave the Union, you cannot commit treason against it.
The Constitution does not outline the steps needed to leave, but nothing exists in the Constitution to prevent any State from peacefully leaving. Sorry to burst the bubble.
LTS
This is one of my favorites. It basically says that if I owe the State money, I must pay in gold or silver coin, no substitutes, no gold/silver certificates, just coin. How does it compare to what the FRNs in your pocket read? This note is legal tender for all debts public and private. If that is not a contradiction, I don't know what is.
Import duties were at one time paid in gold and silver coin. Why? Because under the Constitution, there was no alternative. This part of the Constitution monetizes gold and silver by making people pursue it, and not something else such as Federal Reserve Notes, to pay taxes. Has this part of the Constitution ever been repealed? No. So whatever color of law under which the government is operating that lets it accept Federal Reserve money as tender for taxes, is clearly unconstiutional and a crime is being committed every time such tender takes place. So while y'all are busy arguing if secession is ok or not, the crime is happening right now of Americans being forced to use paper money that has no practical difference from the Continental, the Assignat, the Deutchmark of the Weimar Republic. America was supposed to be different from all the other BS nations that suffer from the abuses of paper money. And her difference begins right here with this clause. Why is it while everyone is arguing over whether or not secession (when now 1861? that's a current event) or bibles in the classroom is Constitutional, no one ever seems to take up the cause of this blatant violation? If not for the ability of the government to ignore this part of the Constitution, we would not have the IRS, bloated bureaucracies, tax rates that take 30-40% of your income.
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.