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.
Very little assumption is necessary. The war in Kansas (1854) between pro- and anti-slavery forces provides an instructive example. Both sides were trying to influence whether Kansas would enter the Union as a free or slave state.
Had secession been allowed to happen, the North and South would have been in direct competition for all of the remaining U.S. territories -- both would have been able to make claim to some or all of them, and would have pursued them.
Fighting, as in Kansas, would undoubtedly have occurred in many cases, especially in the really desirable spots, such as the "gold state" of Colorado. Skirmishes would have led to larger engagements, with all of the wartime efforts that implies.
One may reasonably assume that western wars between the Confederacy and Union would quickly move east -- if nothing else, it makes good military sense to cut supply lines as far east as possible. Control of the Mississippi would have the same importance in this scenario as it did in the actual Civil War.
Such actions would likely have resulted in a general war between North and South.
ROTFLMAO! You're killing me Walt. Do you ever read the cases YOU cite? Obviously it's from The Prize Cases, 2 Black 635, 67 US 635 (1863).
Oooo! Well argued -- you have a way of making the dry, subversive point. I'm going to have to anoint you with the Dr. Sardonicus Chair of Civil War Studies. No stipend, unfortunately. But you get to eat all the crackers you want in a Unionist's bed.
The Southron elites realized that their slaves would decline in value if the western territories were permanently closed to slavery. Therefore, one must wonder how the Southron elites hoped to "peacefully resolve" the issue of expanding the territorial base of slavery when they abandoned the field to the free-soilers. Either (a) they invade US territory, and start a war with their fellow Americans; or (b) they invade Mexico, annoy Mexico's creditors, and start a war with most of Europe.
Also, consider this: the Southron elites were a product of a larger US political culture, one that sought to ensure that no peer competitor existed on the North American continent. With the American political culture now replicated in the Confederacy as well as in the Union, both would look at the other as a peer competitor--something not to be tolerated. It is extremely unlikely, given how willing Davis et al were to pull the trigger on a war, that the Southron elites would unlearn their long-studied political culture--and equally unlikely that the Northern political elites would, either.
In the event, the Confederacy and the U.S. clashed over New Mexico and (very briefly) Arizona, but I don't think the Confederacy made much of a demonstration toward Colorado.
I think they were more interested in closing the Colorado River at its outlet with the Gulf of California, to gain a seaport on the Pacific somehow. They might eventually have been interested in acquiring Baja, but I doubt they had serious designs, or thoughts about acquiring, Utah, Nevada, or the rest of the Mountain West.
In the Arizona expedition, matters ended up with both sides, in one group that was holding captives of the other side's, drawing arms to fight off a determined band of Apaches who wanted to lift all their scalps regardless of uniform. The Confederates withdrew, and didn't contest Arizona again. If the South had won the Civil War, they might have, though, for the geography and the mineral deposits of New Mexico and Arizona.
No, that was not my point in that post. Please learn to distinguish between discussing a major point (secession: right or wrong?) and an indirectly related minor point (probable courses of action after secession).
I was merely pointing out that nice, peaceful, amicable relations between Union and Confederacy were about as likely as you deeding all of your worldly goods and chattels over to me.
I assume you are attacking the Unionists, but it's also true that "Northern Sympathizers were jailed, censored, and driven underground" by the Confederacy. Was the Confederacy any less "totalitarian," if that is the right word, than the Union? Others on the thread will no more about it than I do, but similar oppressions of the press and of dissenters, supressions of habeus corpus, taxation and draft laws were a part of Confederate history, along with slavery and the slave codes.
But my reference was to the prewar period. Democrats had won every Presidential election but two for thirty years, and Southern influence was very strong in that party. Had they been wiser, more clever or more prudent, Southern leaders would have done all they could to keep the party together. That could have kept Lincoln out of the White House. But instead they played up the slavery question and alienated those who could have voted with them in elections. It was a real failure of political sense. One interpretation is that on some level or in some way, they were already determined to secede.
Since you like the Prize Cases, you'll obviously honor the part where they refer to "the so-called Confederate States."
And of course this:
"He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But, by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."
Walt
That sounds like a reasonable theory, but I've never read it expounded anywhere but here. Do you have a historian I could read on that? I have only Nicolay on the origins of the war, and unfortunately he is very partisan. I didn't see a reference in him to Davis's motive in deciding to take Fort Sumter (which Lincoln surely left out there as a troll; but that's another story).
That all said, what you say "sounds right". And if I'd been there, I'd have slapped the taste out of ol' Jeff Davis's mouth, to call him to his senses. Even at the towering risk of being called out under Code Duello.
There was another motive that I've seen mentioned: Jeff Davis reasoned, by analogy with the American Revolution, that he was going to need European recognition as a palladium. If Lincoln continued to hold forts in Charleston harbor, Davis's failure to clear the remaining Federal installations in the South would be a major impediment to European recognition of the Confederacy. Have you read that one?
If memory serves McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" also touches on the need for the south to attract the border south states but not in the detail that Abrahamson does.
Men tried. Robert Toombs, for one. He was secretary of state and he wrote to Davis on Sumter, saying:
"The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has ever seen. It is suicide, murder...You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean; legions, now quiet, will swarm out and sting us to death; It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."
Toombs was right.
How so?
Williams claims that "virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession."
Against that, we have the plain fact that when events came to a head (in the only test case to date), these same political leaders acted against the secessionist states.
Actions speak louder than words.
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.