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.

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.

Excellent. What foaming-at-the-mouth South-haters like WhiskeyPapa can NEVER argue is WHY, if it was SO CLEAR that sessession was illegal, did the North not indict or ever TRY President Jefferson Davis? They conveniently forget PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE and who said that RIGHT of session was IMPLICIT. Of course, they also believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights GRANT RIGHTS to the People - which all FReepers know is a crock. The Constitution and Bill of Rights LIMIT Government. So if it isn't stated, it is permited. Period.

"Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government." Thomas Jefferson, 1798.

"Although the South would have preferred any honourable compromise to the fratricidal war which has taken place, she now accepts in good faith its constitutional results, and receives without reserve the amendment which has already been made to the constitution for the extinction of slavery. This is an event that has long been sought, though in a different way, and by none has it been more earnestly desired than by citizens of Virginia." Gen. R.E. Lee, 1866.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right-a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own so much of the territory as they inhabit." Abraham Lincoln, 1848.

Deo Vindice

Are you saying, that because some people in the Confederacy owned slaved (what was it, 15% of them?), that nothing Lincoln did is inexcusable?

I know the current line is that "hardly" anyone in the south had any slaves, but having poured through census records of the old south, doing geneological research, I was not surprised to find that almost everyone had at least one or two. (my ancestors, included). Even people of modest means had someone to help with the chores.

Had the Civil War not occurred in 1860, does anyone think war could have been avoided, as both north and south competed for western lands?

Had the Civil War not occurred in 1860, would there not eventually have been a slave revolt of the most bloody kind?

A slave economy can not survive long term. It was doomed from the outset. Too many brave, noble, southern lads died to defend bloated, corrupt, elitists who used them for their own ends.

Why does secession if done peacefully, consitute insurrection? The Constitution does not prohibit the states from withdrawing and thus that power is specifically left to the states. If the States peacefully decide to succeed, then the US Govt had no right to use force to prevent it in the first place.

Insurrections are not always unpeaceful. If you want an example, look at Mahatma Ghandi and his hunger strikes.

There's a lot of word parsing here, so let me be real specific. Here's the definition of "insurrection" (Oy, the old dictionary is getting a workout today!): "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government". To "revolt" is to "to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government)". So by combining the two definitions, we find that to insurrect is an act of renouncing allegiance or subjection against civil authority or an established government. No violence is expressly or implicitly implied.

Now, on to the real question: how exactly can a state secede without renouncing allegiance to the U.S. government?

Show us where the Constitution forbids secession.

Everywhere.

"Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the constitution, wil be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes. They instituted, for such purposes, a national government complete in all its parts, with powers legislative, executive and judiiciary, ad in all those powers extending over the whole nation."

- Justice James Wilson, Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793

Walt

"At any rate, they expected a fight, prepared for a fight, picked a fight, got a fight, and lost it. The concept of "peaceful secession" was never in play."

If the concept of peaceful secession was "never in play" it was because Lincoln said he would never allow it in the first place. The South prepared for a fight because Lincoln said he was going to bring them one. This despite the fact that the Constitution does not prohibit the States from secession nor does it grant the Fed govt the power to prohibit it. Still, you have not answered the question of why peaceful secession would constitute "insurrection" when nothing in the Constitution prohibits it and the Constitution specifically reserves for the States all powers not specifically delegated to the Fed?

Article 1, Section 10 prohibits, among other things, insurrections by the States. As r9etb asked earlier, how can a secession not be an insurrection?

Under the Federal system, as originally designed by the Framers, the Federal Gov't was an agent of the several States. They ceded no more authority to their agent than what is written in the Constitution, and reserved all other powers to themselves.

The ability to fire your agent and hire one which better suits your needs is fundamental. Who is the master? The States or the Federal Gov't?

insurrection: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

secession: formal withdrawal from an organization.
Source: Webster's.

Quite frankly, my dear dwbh1342, I'm predicting that within 20 years this whole debate will be academic. The federal government, which is already so broke it has to beg Norway to help protect its own airspace, is on its last legs. Federal land grabs, federal campaigns against school prayer, Waco, Ruby Ridge--the federal government is regarded far and wide as an arrogant, tyrannical interloper. An FBI agent looking for Eric Rudolph interviewing a local Tarheel asked the man his profession. The Tarheel's response was, "Sittin' in this g**d*** chair!" Most U.S. citizens don't even bother to vote--the government can't even claim the consent of a majority anymore. That's why its representatives blockade themselves behind concrete and travel in armed caravans.

It's only a matter of time.

What none of these Lincoln bashers ever bothers to tell us is, though, is how they would have orchestrated the abolition of slavery quicker than he did.

I know this will appall you, but I don't really care about this argument, because it's irrelevant. That means it has no bearing on Constitutional questions, other than as a side note about how that Constitution allowed slavery to begin with. Bringing it up is simply a means of covering your backside when logic and a clear reading of the document in question has sent you Unlimited Government Supporters scurrying for cover. And that's what this battle is about, and the root of Dr. William's argument, that the Constitution places limits on what can be done to the citizens and in their name.

You may be passionate about your Yankee heritage, but your ancestors trampled the U.S. Constitution, and doing so has led us to this point. It is you who should hang your head in shame, for only 15% of Southerners owned slaves, the rest were fighting for their personal rights. All of your ancestors fought to partially free the Black slaves, but in doing so made slaves of us all! No middle passage, just a March to the Sea.

There, now, can we get back to how you're argument has no basis in the Constitution?

LTS

Both the nineth and tenth amendments reserve the right to the people to maintain the Union.

Poppycock! What this amounts to is having a "right" to hold entire populations of States in bondage to the "Union." The Union which was to serve the States, not enslave them.

Y'all want to make this about slavery. There it is. The South holding certain people as slaves was wrong. The North holding their fellow countrymen captive in a "union" they had no desire to stay in was even more wrong.

Nothing highlighted in the article supports the federal government to uphold the union at all costs. Nothing.

"At all costs" is a red herring. The first question is: does the Constitution grant the right to deal with insurrections. The answer is yes.

The next question is: should the Federal Government have dealt with the secessionists, or should it have let them go?

That's less clear; however, U.S. history leading up to the war indicates that a war between North and South was probably inevitable. The bloodshed in Kansas is a case in point. It is very likely that the British would have supported an independent South in such a war, and it's also likely that the North would have been at a disadvantage had secession been allowed to occur.

By those lights, one can make a reasonable case that the North acted to define the terms of an inevitable battle.

Show us where the Constitution forbids secession.

Everywhere.

- Justice James Wilson, Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793

No, Walt, that's one man's opinion, show the actual text of the bloody document where it forbids it.

LTS

Under the Federal system, as originally designed by the Framers, the Federal Gov't was an agent of the several States. They ceded no more authority to their agent than what is written in the Constitution, and reserved all other powers to themselves.

No, Article VI quite clearly says that where the U.S. Constitution and State constitutions come into conflict, the U.S. Constitution always takes precedence. Neither is the master of the other, since they have separate spheres of influence.

The ability to fire your agent and hire one which better suits your needs is fundamental.

Yes, and we can elect whomever we please to public office. But we still can't override the Constitution.

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.