Walter Williams: Wrong on Secession

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.

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.

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.

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.

The North was putting undue tariffs on Southern goods to force Southerners to ship to them...

Check your laws there, son. Tariffs are placed on imports, not exports. And in the year prior to the war over 95% of all tariff income was collected in three ports - New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. Philadelphia alone collected almost as much in tariffs as the 11 busiest southern ports. Finally, if the tariff was such a bone of contention then why was one of the first actions of the confederate congress placing a tariff on every imported item?

You just don't read a word I write, do you? No wonder you keep claiming that the confederate constitution outlawed slave imports, you probably haven't read that, either.

What I originally stated: "It outlawed the further importation of slaves, something the US Constitution failed to do."

In you 715, you allege that Davis is misquoting the Constitution. He was not. He was quoting the provisional Constitution, as the permanent Constitution had not yet been ratified.

In his veto, Davis stated:

"The rule herein given is emphatic, and distinctly directs legislation which shall effectually prevent the importation of African negroes. The bill before me denounces as a high misdemeanor the importation of negroes or other persons of color, either to be sold as slaves, or held to service or labor, affixing heavy and degrading penalties on the act, if done with such intent."

What he was referring to was the importation of slaves entering the Confederacy under agency and pretext of future sale, being refused and then offered for sale in the Confederate states. The Constitution was quite explicit - no additional African slaves could be imported. Existing slaves from the other slaveholding states or slaveholding territories could be brought in (as a carrot to the states that had yet to join the Confederacy), but no slaves from the other states. So other than allowing for the addition of another state to join the Confederacy, the further importation of slaves was prohibited. And even then, if the legislature so desired, it could "prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or territory not belonging to, this Confederacy."

Earlier you had also written, "why would the confederate government care about violations of foreign law so long as their own demand for new slaves was met?"

If they Confederacy did have a demand for new slaves, why prohibit their importation? Why not expressly state it in their Constitution that could emulate the Yankee slavers and travel to the coast of Africa to purchase new ones?

Of course I'm serious. Hamilton, Madison and Jay wrote 85 Federalist Papers to convince Americans of the need to dissolve the not-so-perpetual union.

I see.

You're seriously proposing that something you called mythical could be dissolved.

You're seriously proposing that there could be a need to dissolve anything that is mythical.

You seem to believe that it is possible to dissolve something that is mythical.

Forget what the Founder's said. It's not relevant to this. Think about the words "dissolve" and "mythical."

In you 715, you allege that Davis is misquoting the Constitution. He was not. He was quoting the provisional Constitution, as the permanent Constitution had not yet been ratified.

Here is a link to the permanent constitution and here is a link to the provisional constitution. The clause reads the same in both documents.

Because the constitution did not prohibit their importation. It specifically protected the importation of slaves from some parts of the United States.

The clause reads the same in both documents.

It does? They are entirely different clauses, as their is no section 9 in the Provisional version.

From the Provisional Constitution (8 Feb 1861):

Article I, Sec. 7. (1) The importation of African negroes from any foreign country other than the slave-holding States of the United States, is hereby forbidden; and Congress are required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

From the Permanent Constitution (11 Mar 1861):

Article I, Sec. 9. (1) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

President Davis veto was dated 28 Feb 1861 - after the provisional Constitution and before the permanent one. FYI, on the Avalon site the revalent section as "section 7, Article 1", not as "section 9, article 1" posted earlier. The veto is in the appendix of "The South Was Right" by the Kennedy brothers, I'll check and see how it's listed there.

It specifically protected the importation of slaves from some parts of the United States.

Would you agree that the slaves in question - in either case - are either in the CSA or USA? The USA did not ban the slave trade until 1808, during that time Yankee ships sailed the seas to bring their cargo here. After 1807 legally no new slaves could enter the country, yet slaves could still be bought and sold within the states. Are those considered imports? The CSA could purchase these slaves prior to secession, and to induce additional states to join the Confederacy they allowed these states to enter the CSA. The permanent Constitution also added a clause that even this latter inducement could be removed, and that no slaves could ever enter the country regardless.

BAD NEWS; THIS IS GONNA BE HARD TO SPIN.

===============================

FROM: http://www.historychannel.com/

POLL RESULTS

What was the primary cause of the Civil War?

Slavery 28% 938 votes
State's rights 56% 1916 votes
Trade and tariff policy 9% 318 votes
Western expansion 3% 93 votes
Other 4% 130 votes

Total: Total Votes: 3,395

What is your point in reiterating over and over that the war was about the slavery issue and only the slavery issue?

Please don't tell me you're working one of those Marxist "tides of history" arguments.

Or that the South deserved to lose because it was on the wrong side of a moral controversy it had no right to win. (That's teleology.)

Which last is rebutted by analogy: If I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, after the fact, that Bob's safe contained ill-gotten gains, am I to be held harmless in the outcome for kicking his door down, gunning him down, and cracking his safe to appropriate its contents? Just wondering.

None of which assails 4CJ's case.

I have checked in intermittently on this thread, and I see you and Walt and ravinson arguing exactly the same arguments you used 400 posts ago. I guess you really don't want to change your opinions, do you?

Or rather, considering what was actually done during the Civil War, I guess you can't.

I will correct you on one thing; I have never said that the sole reason why the south started the rebellion was slavery. I have said that defense of the institution of slavery was overwhelmingly the single most important reason for their actions. And I base that on the documents and the writings and the speeches of the times. Until you can demonstrate that there is a larger body of evidence that showes defense of the institution of slavery was not the most important reason why the south began the rebellion then why should I change my opinion?

You still haven't answered my question: What's it to you?

Just for the sake of argument, what if slavery was the only issue? You arguing all this stuff just for a sound bite? "You're for slavery! You're apologizing for slavery! You're in favor of slavery!"

Which of course would be demagoguery, but people have thrown their reputations away to score smaller political points before now.

Not that I concede the argument. If it weren't slavery, it'd be something else, because the underlying problem was, what happens to people's rights and freedom when a political machine succeeds in putting it all together at the national-political level? Will the divisions between States and the federal government work? -- or will some strongman claim the right to impose his policies throughout a transparent continuum in the name of his shibboleths du jour and his "mandate from history"? Will majoritarian strongmen gratify themselves by turning Virginia into a parking lot?

I don't know what part of the country you're from (you post like you're a New Englander, full of ideas about what's good for the rest of the country -- Yankees have always been that way), but I think you'd better get over this Yankee conceit, that you'll always be on the winning side, so you can "trust" the federal government. Because believe me, you will clutch the threadbare, bullet-riddled blanket of states' rights close to your bosom, if Southerners ever get into the saddle and remember who made their lives hell for 160 years. Then you will wish you had the rights you burned down in 1865 just to "get" the people who stood in your way on the road to empire.

So, N-S, take a shot at answering my question. What does "it's all about slavery" do for you?

What does it do for me? It means that when all you sothron supporters post your crap about how it wasn't about slavery then you don't get away with it unchallenged.

Go ahead with your sothron arrogance and spectulate where I am from (you're off by a considerable margin BTW) and complain about you life being hell for the last 160 years, and conveniently forget that southerners controlled the House and Senate for almost all of the last century, and held the White House for quite a bit of it as well. If your life has been hell then blame your own people, don't blame me.

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.