Walter Williams: Wrong on Secession

vanity ^ | 4/3/02 | Self

[r9etb]

Several states (Virginia and New York, for example) reserved the right to secession as a condition to their ratification of the Constitution. Thus, you either have to argue that these states were never legally part of the Union (since the conditions of ratification were unacceptable) or that these states have the right to secession as set forth at the time of ratification.

Grant for the sake of argument that you're correct about Virginia. The problem is, most of the secessionist states did not (could not!) have such clauses. The independent country of Virginia entered into a compact (which included significant military support) with states that were in open revolt against the U.S.

Virginia thereby declared itself to be our enemy, and as such the U.S. was justified in a military campaign against it.

[billbears]

Even Hamilton, one of the most ardent Federalists of the time, saw the legality in secession. I'll post a couple of his quotes from the Federalist papers this evening. Still doesn't even cover the fact that Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York all signed the Constitution with the express written understanding that they could leave at any time

[freedomcrusader]

The secessionist states clearly violated almost every part of Section 10 -- especially that last clause

But if a state has seceded then it's no longer subject to any restrictions in the Constitution, since it is no longer a party to it.

Also, what about Article VII: The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Clearly no state could be forced to be part of the Union without its express consent. By giving consent to enter the Union, a state is supposed to forever surrender it's ability to withdraw its consent?

[Texaggie79]

"It is unconstitutional because the Articles of the USC clearly make it so.

[r9etb]

You have to present your argument better than quoting the Constitution and saying you disagree with DiLorenzo and Williams. You fail to support the reasons why the men in dispute are wrong. Not a convincing argument!

Why? If Williams says that secession was legal, and that Lincoln was wrong in trying to stop it; and the Constitution flatly contradicts him -- what other argument need be made?

[Maceman]

You also make a compelling argument.

[The Green Goblin]

The independent country of Virginia entered into a compact (which included significant military support) with states that were in open revolt against the U.S.

As has been pointed out, the secessionist states were not in revolt against civil authority, since the duly-elected governments of those states were the civil authority.

Nowhere does the Constitution state that the Union shall exist in perpetuity.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Rats; It's the Militia Act of 1792.

And it still doesn't apply!!

Well, here's what it says:

"And it be further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislatures of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."

The 1862 Supreme Court decision on the Prize Cases cites the Militia Axt as modified in 1795.

The Militia Act was passed at the request of President Washington.

Just saying it doesn't apply doesn't make it so.

You might want to consider an adult response.

Walt

[Rodney King]

In U.S. law however, there is no right to -legal- uniateral secession.

I agree. It was also illegal to secede from Britain. It was also illegal when Texas seceded from Mexico.

Either you beleive that people are endowed by our creator with certain inalienble rights, which includes the right to self government, or you don't. I do. You don't.

I am a Yankee. I am not saying that "The south was right" or anything like that. They were slaveholders. However the fact that it was "illegal" to secede is meaningless.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Clearly no state could be forced to be part of the Union without its express consent. By giving consent to enter the Union, a state is supposed to forever surrender it's ability to withdraw its consent?

You have to remember that the Articles of Confederation were a total failure. Something more pervasive was needed, as George Washington said. The Constitution does have a conflict resolution mechanism; it can be amended.

But you are correct. There is no legal way out of the Union without the consent of the other states.

Walt

[The Green Goblin]

And it be further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

There is nothing in the Constitution which forbids the secession of states, so this argument of yours is irrelevant.

[stainlessbanner]

The only thing missing from this article is:

Article X.
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.

[Illbay]

What if the President a state chose didn't win? They leave the Union and make him the president of their new nation.

Which is EXACTLY what did happen in 1860-61. The slaveholding states chose to put up their own candidate, Breckinridge, and so split the vote allowing Lincoln to be elected in a plurality.

They didn't like it, they said much the same kinds of things about it that the Democrats (again!) said about G. W. Bush in 2000, and so the seceded rather than face the steady decline of the power of the slaveowner. They had been beaten in "Bleeding Kansas" five years earlier, they had been prohibited by the Wilmot Proviso from extending slavery into the new territories, and they saw no alternatives to either giving up on the inevitable emancipation of their "property" or leaving the union (even if illegally), so that's what they did.

[FormerRep]

The DOI = Articles of Confederation

[Illbay]

Does the Constitution somehow eliminate the "Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"?

In the case of the slaveholders' rebellion, "the People" had nothing to do with it. It was all done by the will of a few powerful and influential slaveholders and their political cronies.

Hardly a popular revolt.

[dwbh1342]

But if a state has seceded then it's no longer subject to any restrictions in the Constitution, since it is no longer a party to it.

That's a moot point. We're talking about the legality of the act of secession, not necessarily the legality of what they do after they illegaly seceed. If I stand on a street corner and announce I am now a citizen of the Republic of Me, that doesn't mean I can go rob a bank and escape punishment. I didn't properly annul my citizenship to begin with, so the laws of the United States still apply to me.

Also, what about Article VII: The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
Clearly no state could be forced to be part of the Union without its express consent. By giving consent to enter the Union, a state is supposed to forever surrender it's ability to withdraw its consent?

Yes. It's in the contract. Check out Article I in The Senate resolution to annex Hawaii:

"The Republic of Hawaii hereby cedes absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies: and it is agreed that all the territory of and appertaining to the agreed that all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii." You'll find that other annexation resolutions have very similar language. Moral of the story: don't sign annexation resolutions if you're just fooling around.

[babyface00]

It seems to me that there are good arguments on both sides of this. If this question hasn't been resolved 150 years after the WBtS, maybe its time for a Constitutional amendment that either expressly permits, or expressly denies the right of a state or states to seceed.

[freedomcrusader]

But you are correct. There is no legal way out of the Union without the consent of the other states.

I didn't say that at all

[Stefan Stackhouse]

Abolition of the Constitution is not even mentioned within the document itself, and it's hard to see how it could be.

Both secession of individual states and the abolition or replacement of the constitution itself are implicitly covered under the provisions governing the amendment of the constitution. Secession was, and still is possible. All that is needed is a constitutional amendment providing for the secession of the states that request it. Similarly, the present constitution could be replaced in its entirety through the amendment process. The amendment could be, in effect, a "deconstitution" detailing the disposition of federal assets and liabilities, treaty obligations, etc.

What is NOT provided for in the constitution is the unilateral secession of individual states.

It is an interesting "what if" question as to what would have happened if a constitutional amendment resolution were introduced in congress in 1860 allowing for the secession of the slave states.

[The Green Goblin]

In the case of the slaveholders' rebellion, "the People" had nothing to do with it. It was all done by the will of a few powerful and influential slaveholders and their political cronies. Hardly a popular revolt.

Wrong. It was done by the duly-elected governments of the respective states. That's as close to 'the will of the people" as you can get in this world.