Walter Williams: Wrong on Secession

vanity ^ | 4/3/02 | Self

[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.

[billbears]

Well hell Non, what about taking money from the US Treasury or building ships. That falls under the powers of Congress but your boy up north didn't have a problem skating around that issue. If it didn't fit so well under Constitutional guidelines, he just rubberstamped it with what is better becoming known around here as 'The Act'. Oh, how Washington must have been proud of him. < /sarcasm> Sam Chase printing the money and lincoln spending it faster than he could print it!! And what about Congress? Oh we don't need them!! We've got 'The Act'!! Sounds like a supervillian in the comicbooks. Unfortunately for us, it happened in real life.

[r9etb]

Does Santa Claus post here?

LOL! I knew I got that wrong. Sorry.

[Non-Sequitur]

I enjoy an argument as much as the next guy but if you can't see the difference between armed rebellion, firing on federal troops and appropriating federal property without compensation on the one hand, and a Constitutional election on the other then there is no reason to try to rebut this ridiculous analogy.

[Non-Sequitur]

Billbears, what the heck are you muttering about?

[billbears]

Your statement:

How about Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 where it says Congress shall '...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." Suppression of rebellion surely falls under that.

I was just pointing out that Congress didn't authorize the payment BEFORE the payment for provisions and ships. The Militia Act doesn't cover everything!! Unless you're going to make the argument that Congress acts like SCOTUS and doesn't make a decision until there is a previous action to make a decision on. lincoln allocated the money, spent the money, and ordered the building of the ships long before Congress gave approval. I'm suprised the man even let Congress meet again. He seemed to be controlling all the government actions by himself quite fine.

[Non-Sequitur]

I know that McPherson has been quoted to death around here but the scholarship in "Battle Cry of Freedom" really is very good and it has a lot of tidbits of information. You talk about ordering ships and expanding the Army and complain about how Lincoln overstepped his bounds but in fact it isn't clear in that he actually did. Acting in his capacity of Commander-in-Chief Lincoln was within his power to increase the size of the Army and Navy. What he couldn't do was allocate funds to pay for them. And, in fact, he didn't. McPherson has a whole section in one chapter on it. Lincoln ran the first 5 months ofthe war basically in IOUs. In May and June, McPherson writes, the individual states were raising and organizing regiments and paying all the expenses in the expectation that they would be reimbursed by the federal government. And that, in fact, is what happened once Congress reconvened in July. So Lincoln committed no sin and broke no laws ordering ships and raising troops.

The case of the $2 million disbursement, on the other hand, is another thing altogether. Lincoln felt that he could do that in light of the national emergency. The matter was never taken to court so whether or not he was correct hasn't been adjudicated. But for what it's worth I think that Lincoln's exceeded his constitutional powers in disbursing the $2 million. Had it been taken to court I think that the Supreme Court would have found the same thing. Was Lincoln correct in that the actions were necessary to combat the rebellion? In retrospect it's clear that waiting 6 months wouldn't have made much of a difference in the eventual outcome of the war. But placed in Lincoln's position, while it's easy to say I would have upheld the Constitution, I honestly can't say I would have acted differently.

[stainlessbanner]

Good Quote

[The Green Goblin]

Among other things, Article VI states that the Constitution is superior to any state constitution, and the laws pertaining to them. Thus, a state action nullifying the bonds of the Constitution is invalid on its face. Moreover, the Constitution requires the states, and the legislators of those states, to swear to uphold that hierarchy. As with the rest of the Constitution, Article VI is meant to have a lasting effect. States, by ratifying it, are expected to keep their pledge

There is nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution about the Union lasting in perpetuity. The Constitution is certainly the supreme law of the land so long as states are members of the Union--no one is arguing otherwise. The Constitution does not grant rights of any kind, and the limitations it imposes as a system of government must be explicitystated. Thus, the Constitution lays out the system of government which pertains to the Union of States so long as it exists as such, but it says nothing which explicity prevents states from withdrawing from that Union.

[The Green Goblin]

How about Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 where it says Congress shall '...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." Suppression of rebellion surely falls under that.

The decision made by duly-elected state bodies to peacably seceed from the Union is not a rebellion. It is not a broach against civil autority, since the decision is actually being made by the duly-elected civil authority.

[dwbh1342]

You miss the point. Withdrawing from the Union is certainly renouncing allegiance to the Govt. The point is, nothing in the Constitution prohibits this and the States are specifically given the power to do what the Constitution does not prohibit.

You're going around in circles here. Read what I said in posts #145 defining what an insurrection is, and post #161 where you define what a secession is. Since an insurrection is an act of renouncing allegiance (in this case, to the U.S. government), and a secession is a formal withdrawal from the union, what is the difference between an insurrection and a secession? If there is no difference, then they are one and the same, and therefore, the Constitution prohibits it.

[dwbh1342]

Can you imagine a civil war today - with nukes & all...

I wouldn't want to, even without the nukes. With information technology making the states far more inter-dependent on each other then ever before, the country would be in complete chaos within days.

[dwbh1342]

You may be thinking of this from Art. 2 Sec. 8...

Yes, I was thinking of that. My mistake.

Secession need not be insurection. Sucession is an act of the duely elected government of a state. Insurrection is an attempt to overthrow such a government, or that of the United States. Sucession in not an attempt to overthrow the government being seceeded from, just an attempt to not be part of it any longer.

No, you're thinking of a revolution or coup. As I defined before, an insurrection is an act of revolt, and revolt means to renounce allegiance. Any secession, peaceful or not, would necessarily be renouncing allegiance to the United States, and would therefore be an insurrection.

Once a state seceeded, it would no longer be a state of the Union, and it would not be bound by anything in the Constitution.

As I also mentioned before, we're not talking about whether what a state does after it seceeds is legal, we're taking about whether the act of secession itself is legal. If secession itself is illegal, then it can't legally seceed and would still be bound by the Constitution in whatever it decided to do.

[Non-Sequitur]

But the question is whether the duly elected state bodies have the authority to thake the state out of the Union, peacefully or otherwise. Rawle didn't think so in his book. The the fact that the power is not explicitly denied the states can be offset by the fact that the power is implicitly reserved to the United States. So it boils down to opinion. And in the opinion of the Supreme Court that is not a power that the states have.

[The Green Goblin]

So it boils down to opinion. And in the opinion of the Supreme Court that is not a power that the states have.

It's also the opinion of the Supreme Court that women have a Constitutional right to murder their unborn children. What of it?

[The Green Goblin]

I forgot to mention that I referenced abortion in my last post because Roe vs. Wade was another instance of the Federal Government openly usurping state authority. Abortion became legal in every state overnight, and since the Civil War states' rights have been increasingly cast aside in the name of the federal power grab.

[joebuck]

"You're going around in circles here. Read what I said in posts #145 defining what an insurrection is, and post #161 where you define what a secession is. Since an insurrection is an act of renouncing allegiance (in this case, to the U.S. government), and a secession is a formal withdrawal from the union, what is the difference between an insurrection and a secession? If there is no difference, then they are one and the same, and therefore, the Constitution prohibits it."

Hold the bus. You are changing the definition of insurrection. The original post in this thread said that Websters defined insurrection as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." That is far different from "renouncing allegiance". I can renounce allegience from a variety of things, ie. a church, a country, a club, a mentor etc., without committing insurrection. The websters definition of insurrection clearly implies an unauthorized withdrawal or seperation or even an attempt to overthrow. There is no way the act of renouncing allegience necessarily constitutes insurrection. Since the Consititution does not prohibit seccession there is nothing unauthorized if a State chose to do so.

[Non-Sequitur]

Well, the short answer is that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. And they will continue to have that right unless a future court overturns Roe v. Wade or until a constitutional amendment is adopted that supercedes it. And like it or not it's the same with secession. You can't do! Bad Goblin! Bad, bad, bad!

[dwbh1342]

Hold the bus. You are changing the definition of insurrection. The original post in this thread said that Websters defined insurrection as "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government." That is far different from "renouncing allegiance". I can renounce allegience from a variety of things, ie. a church, a country, a club, a mentor etc., without committing insurrection. The websters definition of insurrection clearly implies an unauthorized withdrawal or seperation or even an attempt to overthrow. There is no way the act of renouncing allegience necessarily constitutes insurrection. Since the Consititution does not prohibit seccession there is nothing unauthorized if a State chose to do so.

Let me try this again...you're not understanding what I'm saying.

1. "Insurrection" means "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government."

2. If insurrection is an act or instance of revolting, what exactly is a revolt? To "revolt" is "to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government)."

3. So, instead of saying an "insurrection" is "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government," we can say that an "insurrection" is "an act or instance of renouncing allegiance or subjection (as to a government) against civil authority or an established government."

4. The definition of "secession" is "formal withdrawal from an organization."

5. If a state withdraws from the Union, it is renouncing its subjection to the established government of the United States.

6. Therefore, since it is impossible for a state to withdraw from the Union without renouncing its subjection to the established government of the United States, every case of secession is an insurrection.

Your example of renouncing allegiance to a church is not the same thing, since insurrection is stated in the definition to be specific to civil authorities and established government. A church does not have "authority" over you. And a dictionary doesn't imply meanings; in fact, the whole point of a dictionary is to state the meaning of the word as explicitly as possible. It has a specific meaning for "insurrection" which states that it is an act of revolting, and "revolting" has a specific meaning, which I've thoroughly explained above.

[The Green Goblin]

Well, the short answer is that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. And they will continue to have that right unless a future court overturns Roe v. Wade or until a constitutional amendment is adopted that supercedes it. And like it or not it's the same with secession. You can't do! Bad Goblin! Bad, bad, bad!

You have to keep in mind that we're talking about things as they should be, not as they are. The issue of secession was decided by force with the Civil War, establishing the principle that "might makes right." However, if we were not able to discuss things as they should be, then this site wouldn't be here, would it?.

[ravinson]

The early parts of an exponential growth curve always look fairly constant when plotted along with the latter parts. Try plotting just say 1850-1900 and see if that doesn't look very similar, ignoring specific events liek the 1860s war, WW-I and most especially WW-II.

You might be surprised. Check it out:

Source.

Note how federal spending dropped steadily after the Civil War and was below 4% by 1900. The exponential growth in the federal government (to the current percentage of GNP of about 25%) began in the 1930's under FDR. The Confederate glorifiers' bogus attempt to blame Lincoln for the sins of big government politicians of the 20th Century is obscene. Even during the height of the Civil War, federal spending's bite out of the national economy never even came close to what it is now.