Walter Williams: Wrong on Secession

vanity ^ | 4/3/02 | Self

[Non-Sequitur]

Really? I doubt that Dr. Williams has done a day's worth of research on the subject. If he had he would have spotted the large number of errors in DiLorenzo's work. Let's just look at one example, that outrageous misquote of Thomas Jefferson. In his column, Williams wrote the following:

Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union ... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

On the face of it, it appears to be a strong support of the right if secession. However, look at the quote in it's entirity:

"The alternatives between which we are to choose [are fairly stated]: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter and hold the former at arm's length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war."

Looked at in context then it is clear that the meaning that DiLorenzo puts into the quote bears no resemblence to what Jefferson meant.

So if you want to wave Dr. Williams' and DiLorenzo's shoddy scholarship for the world to see and claim victory then go right ahead. Those who have actually done some reading on the subject have already seen through their act.

[stainlessbanner]

I thought we took care of the perpetual union idea on another thread!

[KrisKrinkle]

And in reply to you post 21L

The constituion does not have to state the Union shall exist in perpetuity. The Perpetual Union existed prior to the Constitution, by agreement of the States. Half the states you mentioned in post 21 seemed to agree with that about 1860.

[Ditto]

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....

Wow. That's the dangdest rationalization I have ever heard. I guess we better let the folks in the anti-abortion movement know that they are revolutionaries attacking the Constitution and giving states like California an excuse to secede from the Union.

[KrisKrinkle]

Are you up late? I thought you were posting early in the day and I was posting later.

I realize these guys don't need any help finding something to discuss on this issue, but I thought I'd throw a little extra in anyway.

[Jesse]

All of what you say may be true as long as states consent to be within the Union. However, if a state decides to leave, then the state has decided it will no longer be bound by the terms of the Constitution, although it may elect to do so. Therefore all of the powers granted to the federal government to enforce these provisions become meaningless. Nothing, of course, prevents the federal government from doing whatever it wants to anyway. I think that the states can drop out of the Union...it may choose to use the language of the Declaration of Independence and state what compels it to leave. One of the rights that the people retain is the right of free association. If the people don't want to associate with the Union,they have the right not to. I personally don't like language that enumerates the rights of government because I think people have rights, not governments.

Governments have responsibilities. If the people of the state detail a government with the responsibility to secede, then I don't think the federal government has the moral authority to prevent it by force...but it can and will use illicit force to hold its power.

In a free society, that which is not forbidden is legal. Contrary to your assertions, which apply to those states which choose to remain in the Union, there is nothing in the Constitution which forbids a state from taking the step to secede.

[stainlessbanner]

Yep - a bad case of FReeper addiction! Interesting stuff - keep throwing it in the mix ; )

[KrisKrinkle]

...keep throwing it in the mix...

Frankly, I'm having trouble keeping up with all that's going on in this thread. When I first saw it at work it only had about 20 posts. (I lurk a little but don't post from work. A matter of job security.) When I left for home it had almost 200. I'm playing catch up.

[Lancey Howard]

re: your post #49

Excellent points.
"Legality", schmegality....
As far as I am concerned, the spirit of the Constitution is a spirit of "inaleinable rights....endowed by our Creator" which must be protected by any means necessary, including "secession", in whatever form that takes.
Hence, the second amendment.

[Jason_b]

Please follow this link, Lurking Libertarian.

link

[KrisKrinkle]

There is no just philosophy that empowers men to govern over those who do not consent to be governed by them.

I don't know that you can govern someone who does not consent, even if only under duress, to be governed by you. I think maybe you have to let them do as they please--or kill them.

[GregoryFul]

The power to "coin Money" meant to form a standard weight planchet of valuable alloy of gold or silver and emboss it with certification of that standard.

[KrisKrinkle]

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.

Didn't the duly-elected government of the states and of the people say "No" to secession, and therefore was that not as close to "the will of the people" as you could get?

[KrisKrinkle]

...each State presumably has the right to withdraw from the compact unless it explicitly forfiets or waives that right.

Did not the states explicitly forfiet or waive that right when they entered into a Perpetual Union under the Articles of Confederation prior to the establishment of the Constitution?

[Mulder]

Tyrants have been trashing our Constitution and the Rights it enumerates for the last 60+ years, so I find it interesting that they expect their claims of "secession being unconstitutional" to have any validity.

The issue of secession was settled in 1776, when our Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...."

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[CharacterCounts]

Now that is another can of worms. If the union was perpetual, how did the present Constitution come about? Some States ratified the new Constitution readily. Others under some political pressure. Did not those States which first ratify the Constitution simultaenously secede from the perpetual union.

[one2many]

You are a liar and a fraud. Post on this thread, now, anything that supports my agreement to "not contact or respond to you".

Do it now small squid.

[one2many]

I appreciate that 219 post Bro.

[Illbay]

I've said it before. I'll say it again: There was no "righteous rebellion against tyranny." There was, rather, the REACTION by tyrants AGAINST those who were about to SHUT DOWN their tyranny.

The "tyranny" was "Slave Power," as it was decried in nearly every newspaper in the North and West United States. The same tyranny that sought--but failed--to wrest Kansas in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The same Tyranny that sought, in the wake of the Dred Scott decision, to force a repeal of every law limiting slavery anywhere in the U.S., and allow slave ownership to flourish everywhere--which the vast majority of the people did NOT want.

It was that same tyranny, represented by the Democrat Party then as it is today, that put forth an unpopular but politically powerful lobby to try to tear out the very roots of this nation's founding.

Those tyrants were foiled by the election of Abraham Lincoln, who although he promised them their rights local to those few states they controlled wouldn't be abridged, nevertheless swore just as strongly that slavery would not expand one more inch into the new territories. Because of that fact, they rebelled.

PURELY, SOLELY, ONLY FOR THE CONTINUATION AND PROTECTION OF SLAVERY AND FOR NO OTHER REASON.

Revisionist historians like the fanciful dreamers here on FR may rant all they want, but that is immutable FACT.