Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Walter Williams: Wrong on Secession
vanity ^ | 4/3/02 | Self

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: secession; walterwilliamslist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 741-752 next last
To: The Green Goblin
Several states (Virginia and New York, for example) reserved the right to secession as a condition to their ratification of the Constitution. Thus, you either have to argue that these states were never legally part of the Union (since the conditions of ratification were unacceptable) or that these states have the right to secession as set forth at the time of ratification.

Grant for the sake of argument that you're correct about Virginia. The problem is, most of the secessionist states did not (could not!) have such clauses. The independent country of Virginia entered into a compact (which included significant military support) with states that were in open revolt against the U.S.

Virginia thereby declared itself to be our enemy, and as such the U.S. was justified in a military campaign against it.

41 posted on 04/03/2002 10:50:54 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Even Hamilton, one of the most ardent Federalists of the time, saw the legality in secession. I'll post a couple of his quotes from the Federalist papers this evening. Still doesn't even cover the fact that Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York all signed the Constitution with the express written understanding that they could leave at any time
42 posted on 04/03/2002 10:52:12 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
The secessionist states clearly violated almost every part of Section 10 -- especially that last clause

But if a state has seceded then it's no longer subject to any restrictions in the Constitution, since it is no longer a party to it.

Also, what about Article VII: The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Clearly no state could be forced to be part of the Union without its express consent. By giving consent to enter the Union, a state is supposed to forever surrender it's ability to withdraw its consent?

43 posted on 04/03/2002 10:52:13 AM PST by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MyPetMonkey
"It is unconstitutional because the Articles of the USC clearly make it so.
44 posted on 04/03/2002 10:54:28 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
You have to present your argument better than quoting the Constitution and saying you disagree with DiLorenzo and Williams. You fail to support the reasons why the men in dispute are wrong. Not a convincing argument!

Why? If Williams says that secession was legal, and that Lincoln was wrong in trying to stop it; and the Constitution flatly contradicts him -- what other argument need be made?

45 posted on 04/03/2002 10:54:55 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Tree Surgeon
You also make a compelling argument.
46 posted on 04/03/2002 10:56:17 AM PST by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
The independent country of Virginia entered into a compact (which included significant military support) with states that were in open revolt against the U.S.

As has been pointed out, the secessionist states were not in revolt against civil authority, since the duly-elected governments of those states were the civil authority.

Nowhere does the Constitution state that the Union shall exist in perpetuity.

47 posted on 04/03/2002 10:58:44 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Rats; It's the Militia Act of 1792.

And it still doesn't apply!!

Well, here's what it says:

"And it be further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislatures of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."

The 1862 Supreme Court decision on the Prize Cases cites the Militia Axt as modified in 1795.

The Militia Act was passed at the request of President Washington.

Just saying it doesn't apply doesn't make it so.

You might want to consider an adult response.

Walt

48 posted on 04/03/2002 10:59:33 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
In U.S. law however, there is no right to -legal- uniateral secession.

I agree. It was also illegal to secede from Britain. It was also illegal when Texas seceded from Mexico.

Either you beleive that people are endowed by our creator with certain inalienble rights, which includes the right to self government, or you don't. I do. You don't.

I am a Yankee. I am not saying that "The south was right" or anything like that. They were slaveholders. However the fact that it was "illegal" to secede is meaningless.

49 posted on 04/03/2002 11:03:59 AM PST by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: freedomcrusader
Clearly no state could be forced to be part of the Union without its express consent. By giving consent to enter the Union, a state is supposed to forever surrender it's ability to withdraw its consent?

You have to remember that the Articles of Confederation were a total failure. Something more pervasive was needed, as George Washington said. The Constitution does have a conflict resolution mechanism; it can be amended.

But you are correct. There is no legal way out of the Union without the consent of the other states.

Walt

50 posted on 04/03/2002 11:07:36 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
And it be further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

There is nothing in the Constitution which forbids the secession of states, so this argument of yours is irrelevant.

51 posted on 04/03/2002 11:07:54 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
The only thing missing from this article is:

Article X.
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.

52 posted on 04/03/2002 11:08:23 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
What if the President a state chose didn't win? They leave the Union and make him the president of their new nation.

Which is EXACTLY what did happen in 1860-61. The slaveholding states chose to put up their own candidate, Breckinridge, and so split the vote allowing Lincoln to be elected in a plurality.

They didn't like it, they said much the same kinds of things about it that the Democrats (again!) said about G. W. Bush in 2000, and so the seceded rather than face the steady decline of the power of the slaveowner. They had been beaten in "Bleeding Kansas" five years earlier, they had been prohibited by the Wilmot Proviso from extending slavery into the new territories, and they saw no alternatives to either giving up on the inevitable emancipation of their "property" or leaving the union (even if illegally), so that's what they did.

53 posted on 04/03/2002 11:08:34 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Tree Surgeon
The DOI = Articles of Confederation
54 posted on 04/03/2002 11:09:51 AM PST by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: babyface00
Does the Constitution somehow eliminate the "Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"?

In the case of the slaveholders' rebellion, "the People" had nothing to do with it. It was all done by the will of a few powerful and influential slaveholders and their political cronies.

Hardly a popular revolt.

55 posted on 04/03/2002 11:10:06 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freedomcrusader
But if a state has seceded then it's no longer subject to any restrictions in the Constitution, since it is no longer a party to it.

That's a moot point. We're talking about the legality of the act of secession, not necessarily the legality of what they do after they illegaly seceed. If I stand on a street corner and announce I am now a citizen of the Republic of Me, that doesn't mean I can go rob a bank and escape punishment. I didn't properly annul my citizenship to begin with, so the laws of the United States still apply to me.

Also, what about Article VII: The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.
Clearly no state could be forced to be part of the Union without its express consent. By giving consent to enter the Union, a state is supposed to forever surrender it's ability to withdraw its consent?


Yes. It's in the contract. Check out Article I in The Senate resolution to annex Hawaii:

"The Republic of Hawaii hereby cedes absolutely and without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies: and it is agreed that all the territory of and appertaining to the agreed that all the territory of and appertaining to the Republic of Hawaii is hereby annexed to the United States of America under the name of the Territory of Hawaii." You'll find that other annexation resolutions have very similar language. Moral of the story: don't sign annexation resolutions if you're just fooling around.
56 posted on 04/03/2002 11:10:34 AM PST by dwbh1342
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
It seems to me that there are good arguments on both sides of this. If this question hasn't been resolved 150 years after the WBtS, maybe its time for a Constitutional amendment that either expressly permits, or expressly denies the right of a state or states to seceed.
57 posted on 04/03/2002 11:10:55 AM PST by babyface00
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
But you are correct. There is no legal way out of the Union without the consent of the other states.

I didn't say that at all

58 posted on 04/03/2002 11:10:58 AM PST by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Abolition of the Constitution is not even mentioned within the document itself, and it's hard to see how it could be.

Both secession of individual states and the abolition or replacement of the constitution itself are implicitly covered under the provisions governing the amendment of the constitution. Secession was, and still is possible. All that is needed is a constitutional amendment providing for the secession of the states that request it. Similarly, the present constitution could be replaced in its entirety through the amendment process. The amendment could be, in effect, a "deconstitution" detailing the disposition of federal assets and liabilities, treaty obligations, etc.

What is NOT provided for in the constitution is the unilateral secession of individual states.

It is an interesting "what if" question as to what would have happened if a constitutional amendment resolution were introduced in congress in 1860 allowing for the secession of the slave states.

59 posted on 04/03/2002 11:14:20 AM PST by Stefan Stackhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
In the case of the slaveholders' rebellion, "the People" had nothing to do with it. It was all done by the will of a few powerful and influential slaveholders and their political cronies. Hardly a popular revolt.

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.

60 posted on 04/03/2002 11:15:22 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 741-752 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson