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.
Not tacitly anymore. Same moral plane. The right to self-government that we revere in the Declaration applies equally to other groups even when we might not agree with their purpose. The colonists were slave holders and slaver traders, so they had no higher moralilty if that is the issue.
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.
No disagreement about putting down an isurrection, but insurrection and secession are different. That said, the Revolution was insurrection, illegal, treason to the Crown, and a great idea.
Lincoln didn't start the war, he just reacted to what the Confederates started. Had he just let the Confederates do whatever they wanted to do, there still would have been a bloody conflict over slavery, perhaps in the form of a guerilla war that lasted for decades and killed millions. In the meantime 4,000,000+ people would still be in bondage -- though apparently their suffering is of little important to you.
Moreover, I don't know where you got your 600,000 number, but battle deaths totaled about 200,000. Arguably, most of those Civil War soldiers who died of disease or other non-battle causes would have done so anyway had there been no war. Almost all of the Union soldiers who died (including my ggguncle) were volunteers, so you can't blame Lincoln for their brave decisions to lay their lives on the line for liberty. The Confederate soldiers who fought willingly got what they deserved for fighting for the slaveholders, and you can't blame Lincoln for the Confederate conscripts who died.
Yes, in the end slavery was ended - but surely there were more effective ways. Don't think Lincoln's way is the right way!
As I stated before, I'm still waiting for one of you Lincoln bashers to explain what you would have done to abolish slavery in a more efficient manner. Keep in mind that Lincoln was even amenable to bribing the slaveholders to free the Negroes they held in bondage, but the slaveholders were a hardcore bunch of lunatics who would have none of that. For them it was a matter of Southern "honor" and "liberty" for them to keep Negroes subservient.
The lingering question is why he did not take the moral high ground and free the slaves in 1861.
I answered that in Number 171 above. Please explain how you would have had him do it.
Secession is NEVER an act of insurrection by a soveriegn state.
Until you accept the fact Lincoln did not take the moral high ground on this issue, you will not persuade me of my position.
Ask me how I would have done it differently than Lincoln....simply, follow the guidelines my forefathers had set before me (DoI, Constitution). Might does not make right. But this thread is about secession, friend, let's stay on topic.
That was the excuse for sure. Always did sound like a Gulf of Tolkin incident to me. So who knows?
So far, it appears the Walter Williams side has the edge in facts, or at least the lack of prosecution to prove him wrong.
Arguably the United States was formed as a perpetual union under the Articles of Confederation, and its government was reorganized under the Constitution leaving the perpetual union part intact. One time or another, some of the States tried to "bust the deal" and were forced to "face the wheel." In this case, the "Wheel" was a form of Judicial Combat. Arguably, Lincoln and the Federal Government acted on behalf of the States which did not agree with the decision of other States to back out of a deal they had agreed to (before the Constitution existed).
Note: The United States existed as a Perpetual Union by mutual agreement of the States prior to the Constituion. It was not established by the Constitution and does not depend on the Constitution for its existence. The Federal Gorvenment is not the United States. It is a governing mechanism or agent agreed to by the States. If the States convened a Constitutional Convention today, they could amend the Constitution to abolish the Federal Government and establish a Constitutional Monarchy as the governing mechanism, and the United States would still exist. (The thought of a Constitutional Convention held today is really scary considering the quality of the potential participants.)
Note the following:
Articles of Confederation
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777 In force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781
*******
The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident-Hence results the necessity of a different organization. (Letter of the President of the Federal Convention, Dated September 17, 1787, to the President of Congress, Transmitting the Constitution.)
*******
Constitution of the United States : Preamble
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
(Emphasis added.)
*******
This looks like an argument that Lincoln had some justification in trying to preserve the Union.
I came across this recently at Project Avalon and thought I'd throw it into the mix.<
Can you point me to the passage that gives them the right to secede? I can't seem to find it.
|
When the American colonies came to be formed into States, as the result of the Revolutionary war, warned by the oppressions and denial of rights imposed on them by the crown of Great Britain, each of them accompanied their State Constitutions with a "Bill of Rights" in which it was declared that the people possessed certain inalienable rights of which they could not be deprived, which they specified; so when the American people came to form the Constitution of the United States, animated by the same jealousy of the unlimited power of government, they created a government with delegated and strictly limited powers only, and for greater security for their liberty and rights they provided that the powers not therein delegated were reserved to the States and to the people respectively. The Federal government was given jurisdiction over questions of a national and those of an inter-State character, while the States retained jurisdiction over all the local questions and domestic institutions. This is the authority for the doctrine of State rights. Slavery was from the first treated by all the States as a domestic institution, to be controlled or disposed of as each State might choose for itself. And this is the reason why the Northern States abolished slavery without asking the sanction of the Federal government. And when the people of the Northern States commenced their crusade for the abolition of slavery by the numbers and powers of their people where slavery did not exist, and in the States where it did exist without their consent, they commenced a revolution in distinct violation of the Constitution and laws; they made themselves a lawless, revolutionary party, and became rebels against the Government of the United States. And when they levied war to carry out their policy they became traitors. But the minority could not try and punish the treason of the majority. Their pretense was that They were fighting to save the Union, and they made thousands of honest soldiers believe they were fighting for the Union. Their leaders knew that the Union rested on the Constitution, and that their purpose was to overthrow the Constitution. The Union the soldiers fought for was the Union established by the Constitution. The Union the leaders sought was only to be attained by the subversion of the Constitution, the annulment of the doctrine of State rights, the making of a consolidated central republic, abolishing the limitations prescribed by the Constitution and substituting a popular majority of the people of the whole Union in their stead, and to open the way for individual and corporate gain through the agency of the government. Why the South Seceded [Address of Hon. John H. Reagan, only surviving member of the Confederate |
No, if you'll read the original essay, you'll note that this is a thread on the Constitutionality of secession. Tell you what, if you want (and since it might make it easier for you to comprehend, since you haven't had much luck so far) we can frame it as a discussion of whether it is right now constitutional for a State to secede. And before you work you brain up to the point of offering the "no, because the North won the 1861-1865 war", realize that argument is irrelavent, too. That is akin to saying anything is okay if you have a bigger gun.
How's that? Can you put aside your ad hominem attacks and emotion-based rhetoric, and show me where it says Texas cannot secede if I can convince the legislature to pass an article of secession? Point to the wording. And if you want to say that Texas was conquered, nullifying it's right to secede, then let's play your game and make it Maine.
Now to your other silly comment.
Actually, about 1/3 of Southern families owned slaves, and the slaveholders conned most of the nonslaveholding Southerners into supporting the Confederacy by extolling the benefits to them of white supremacy and frightening them with the prospect of free black men raping or marrying their daughters.
Actually, about 1/3 of Southern families owned slaves, and the slaveholders conned most of the nonslaveholding Southerners into supporting the Confederacy by extolling the benefits to them of white supremacy and frightening them with the prospect of free black men raping or marrying their daughters. You're absolutely right, ravinson. I mean, all the archive excerpts I've seen had the soldiers start off every letter home to mom with, "Dear Mom, we're holding Richmond, so Sis is still safe from having to be raped or married by a black man." NOT! But this is a nice attempt to spread utter bulls**t about the thoughts and honor of the Southern fighting man. It also ignores plenty of Northern racism. It is, however, gratifying to see that the money the Federal government spent on propaganda disguised as text books was money well-spent. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure there was plenty of racism, but it spread around pretty equitably. Again, in no way to germane to the constitutionality of secession.
LTS
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.