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.
Or better yet plot on a log-log scale, or even just with the vertical axis being a log scale. That will reveal more "early" detail than a strictly linear plot.
The power to deal with murder was left to the individual states. Thus explaining why some states have the death penalty for it, and others do not. The Constitution is a document organizing the federal government, laying out its powers and laying a few limiations on the powers of the states, mainly in areas where they would conflict with those of the national governement, i.e. foreign affairs, interstate commerce, and coinage of money. It does not put limitations on individual citzens, but rather on governments' powers to restrict citizens rights. Murder is a state matter, except in the District of Columbia and on federal reservations, such as military bases, or in cases arrising in the military forces.
I suppose the states could grant people the power to commit murder, but in any event that is left up to them, except in the circumstances indicated. OTOH, it would probably conflict with the power and obligation of the federal government to guarantee a Republican government to the states.
The Constitution doesn't grant powers to the states, anymore than it grants rights to the people. It does restrict powers of the states, but no such restriction on secession exists. It protect other powesrs of the states, as well as the rights of the people.
Taking property without compensation. For legally the slaves were property, whether we like it or not. Seems like amending the Constitution would have been better, especially in the long run, but in the short run too. I'd have probably "stolen" my loved ones, and killed those holding them, if I could. However as it is, my oath is to the Constitution and emancipating the slaves and preventing secession both violate the Constitution as it existed at the time.
As I noted in Post #275, the Confederates placed a value of $3 billion on their slaves -- equivalent to $58 billion in current dollars and $3 trillion as a percentage of GDP.
And how much did the war cost in those terms? Besides that was an opening price not a final value. Slaves were becoming uneconomical and a final price surely would have been less. It could also have been paid over time. Perhaps abolitionists would have donated part, even most, of the money to speed the process.
But where's Walt? Not like him to give up so early in the game. Or did he pass the keys to his spam library hall-of-shame to ravinson?
An interesting question- if you are from Texas, as your nick implies, you might note the unusual conditions that Texas imposed on the USA prior to joining the union. One was the right to secede from the USA. r9etb has written a nice piece here but it ignores the context in which the union was formed. I do not think that any state was willing to concede its existence to the power of a federal authority.
Williams said "states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states."
Which was correct. And you need not go back to the Civil War - just check out Alaska's politics in the 90's.
I would support and applaud a State's right to secede. If Alaska gets fed up with Left Coast liberalism and it's duly elected legislature opts out of the Union, that's not an insurrection - it's state-of-the-art, lassiez-faire ("leave me alone" [Fr.]) capitalism.
Pure freedom requires a volunteer army and besides, the Founders were skeptical of a standing army.
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.