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.

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

Since James Wilson was beaten half to death for supporting the Constitution, -his- opinion has more value than -yours-.

His being a Justice on the Supreme Court also makes his opinion more valuable than yours.

Walt

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.

Neither is the master of the other? Who created whom? The States created the Federal gov't. They had ALL the sovereignity of any other country. They created a Federal govt and granted it certain powers. Nothing in the Constitution, inded nothing in our political history, hints that this grant was permanent and irrevocable.

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.

I'm afraid you didn't get my analogy. The federal govt is a creation of the States. If it does not suit their needs, they can take their full sovereignity back and try again. Didn't the Articles of Confederation mean anything? Did the Framers at the Constitutional convention commit "insurrection" against the Articles?

"Okay. So how is withdrawing from the Union not renouncing allegiance to the U.S. Government"

You miss the point. Withdrawing from the Union is certainly renouncing allegiance to the Govt. The point is, nothing in the Constitution prohibits this and the States are specifically given the power to do what the Constitution does not prohibit.

well said, babyface00, and the constitution allows the federal government to suppress any rebellion but does not guarantee its victory.

it is my humble opinion that the people always have the declaration of independence as their trump, but freedom always comes at a price.

good post and nice reasoning.

I disagree. The 10th Amendment says, "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." Since the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to create a state, combine states, split states, or to adjust their borders in any way whatsoever, then it is clear that matters pertaining to the status of a state was a power reserved to the United States. That would include withdrawing from the Union.

If the concept of peaceful secession was "never in play" it was because Lincoln said he would never allow it in the first place.

Henry Clay's compromise of 1850 is credited with averting civil war, and for holding the Union together.

Given that Lincoln wasn't elected until 10 years later, one cannot blame him for the violence. It was probably inevitable.

Or, another question is why did Lincoln NOT free the slaves in 1861 at the onset of his war?

That's very simple: (a) he didn't believe that he had the Constitutional authority to free all slaves; (b) he didn't have control of the slaveholders in the rebellious states; and (c) he believed that the rebellion had to be successfully put down before abolition was feasible. Nevertheless, he instituted or agreed to numerous interim anti-slavery measures long before issuing the Emanicipation Proclamation. (See Abraham Lincoln's Evolving Stance On Slavery From 1861-1863)

Lincoln very skillfully walked a fine line as a pragmatic abolitionist between the radical Republicans on one side and the conservative Northerners on the other, and I don't see how anyone can seriously question his effectiveness in ending slavery in the final analysis.

The Declaration of Independence is just that--a statement of the reasons we separated ourselves from British rule. It is not a constitution and does not establish rules for governance. While it's value to America as a statement of principle cannot be understated, it does not rise to the level of the Constitution in determining the rules under which our government operates. I would refer you to the statement of Daniel Webster about the idea of secession/nullification. He correctly points out that a Constitution which allowed unilateral secession is not a constitution at all --it is anarchy. Lincoln, who revered the Declaration of Independence, simply pointed to the preamble of the constitution ("We the People") and argued that the "states" had not entered into the Constitution, rather, the people had. (the Articles of Confederation refer to an agreement between states while the Constitution refers to the consent of the people). And, Lincoln argued, that since the people had never voted to secede, secession was unconstitutional. I was upset by Williams clearly unwarranted assertion that Lincoln's election "backed the south into a corner." What Williams, and I assume DiLorenzo (I have not yet read the book) fail to address is how Lincoln would have governed if there had been no secession. Does anyone know what the composition of the Congress during Lincoln's term would have been without secession? I have read that it would have been heavily Democrat. I suspect if the southern states had stayed in the Union, Lincoln would have been regarded as an earnest failure--much like some of his predecessors.

Since the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to create a state, combine states, split states, or to adjust their borders in any way whatsoever, then it is clear that matters pertaining to the status of a state was a power reserved to the United States. That would include withdrawing from the Union.

I think you read too much into this. The powers given to the federal govt for this purpose are to prevent chicanery and to settle disputes among the states. It is to prevent, Vermont, for example, from deciding it wants to be 10 states instead of one, thereby gaining more representatives and senators. The point is that these powers ceded are to address the representation of a state in the union.

The States never gave to the federal gov't the power to keep them bound to a union they no longer want.

His being a Justice on the Supreme Court also makes his opinion more valuable than yours.

And here I thought all men were created equal. Tell me, is your opinion more valuable than mine?

Not that it matters, since I'm not asking your opinion, I'm asking you to post the text of the Constitution that expressly forbids a State from opting out of the Union. If it existed, there'd be no need for opinions, or self-serving SCOTUS rulings. But it doesn't exist, so you keep posting all these quotes by people who were trying to wish it into existence.

Are you sure he wasn't beaten half to death by a crowd of people who'd read the Framer's own views on the matter of secession, State's Rights, and a host of other things this clown may not have grasped.

LTS

I would disagree that the battle was inevitable. The North had no business in the South if the South wanted to secede and form their own union. They did form their own union, and the North invaded, hence, it is called "The War of Northern Aggression".

I refer you to the history of Bloody Kansas (1854).

A look at the map reveals another 1500 miles of land west of Kansas, chock full of resources and fertile fields.

To suppose that the conflict that actually did visit itself upon Kansas would not repeat itself further west, is ludicrous. The war was inevitable, and had been so long before that (consider, e.g., the Missouri Compromise of 1820).

Effectiveness? Destroying many states and killing 600000 lives? Yes, in the end slavery was ended - but surely there were more effective ways. Don't think Lincoln's way is the right way!

The lingering question is why he did not take the moral high ground and free the slaves in 1861. However, I do not want to continue this debate here - let's save it for a "lincoln" post. We'll focus on secession in this forum.

The 10th ammendment is one of the most important ammendments, in terms of guaranteeing our liberty. It is an extension of the concept of the separation of powers. Executive, judicial, legislative, on the one hand; federal, state, local on the other.

It is essential that we resurrect the 10th ammendment, and begin to carve out a wider area of state, and citizen's, sovereignty.

But this is not an exercise in high school civics. The purpose of all this is not a more perfect debating society, but to define and defend the liberty of the individual.

Not the state.

And state government, and local government, can be as dangerous to an individual's freedom as can the federal. More so; the raw face of government power is more likely to visit you in the form of a sheriff's deputy than an FBI agent.

It was linking the 10th ammendment to slavery and the defense of the old Jim Crow laws that killed it, made it impossible to defend. And continueing to tie it to those issues only does damage if you believe in the 10th and if you believe in freedom.

Remember, states' rights is not freedom, the use of state laws to violate the constitutional rights of your fellow citizens is not freedom. Freedom is freedom.

Sorry, but I don't think that you read enough into it. The Constitution gives power to Congress to decide anything at all concerning the status of a state. The Constitution nowhere allows a state to act in an arbitrary manner when the interests of another state can be involved. Why does it make sense to believe that the Constitution would give Congress authority to decide on every matter affecting the status of a state - except for arbitrary secession? Why would it make sense for the Constitution to forbid states from acting in any arbitrary manner where the interests of another state may be affected - except for arbitrary secession? You see that right to arbitrary secession only because you want to see that right and only by ignoring the rest of the Constitution in the process.

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.