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.

[KrisKrinkle]

...why doesn't it follow logically...

Because it's the United States, not the United People. It's a union of States, not a union of people.

[Non-Sequitur]

Tariff policy, in other words, operated as a way of collecting taxes disproportionately from Southerners, while subsidizing Northern industrial interests.

How can this be true when 95% of net tariffs collected in the year prior to the war were collected from Boston, New York, and Philadelphia? IF tariffs were such a bone of contention then why was one of the first actions of the confederate congress to impose tariffs on anything and everything that was imported?

[r9etb]

? IF tariffs were such a bone of contention then why was one of the first actions of the confederate congress to impose tariffs on anything and everything that was imported?

Because tariffs were not the real bone of contention, but merely an additional point of friction in relations that had already been strained beyond the breaking point. Moreover, tariffs offered a means of expressing a "real" grievance, and thus served as a way of deflecting attention from the slavery issue.

Arguments that slavery wasn't the real issue just don't wash. If slavery wasn't an issue, then there would not have been any controversy over whether new states would be admitted as slave or free. But of course, slavery was just about the only controversy that accompanied the addition of new states. It was the issue.

[Maelstrom]

1)Check the margins on the payees.

2)None of the northern states' businesses were subjected to military force in the collection of their tariffs.

3)The tariffs from the South went north anyway, lowering the cost of a lesser impact to the northern industrialists.

However, there is nothing that will persuade you that slavery was the only issue at stake, and nothing will persuade you that the damage done to states' rights in the War of Northern Aggression was and will be more than the damage done by allowing secession.

Slavery was no longer economically viable and would have died out or driven Southern states back to the North and killed off slavery in the process anyway.

[Non-Sequitur]

You managed to completely avoid the point. The south, with about a third of the total population paid about on-twentieth of the total tariffs. Military was not involved in the collection, nor could they have been particularly onerous.

Slavery was by far the single, most important reason for the southern rebellion. All the documentation of the period makes that abundantly clear. None of the documentation of the period mentions any other single cause so frequently and so stridently as defense of slavery. None. And as for slavery being a dying institution, that is false as well. Slavery was thriving and the southern planters had every expectation that their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren would benefit from it. Any claims that it was no longer economically viable or was dying out are not supported by the evidence.

[Rule of Law]

The 2nd Amendment is actually a very good argument against the supposed right of secession, no?

No. The 2d Amendment gives us the wherewithal to actually exercise our right to secession.

As many people have pointed out, if a state seceded the federal government is sure to fight to keep the people from exercising the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. (Governments care nothing about rights. Power is all they are concerned with.) The 2d Amendment gives citizens the something to fight governmental tyranny with.

Of course, secession is not the only way we can fight governmental tyranny. The 2d Amendment can come in handy in a number of circumstances.

[r9etb]

No. The 2d Amendment gives us the wherewithal to actually exercise our right to secession.

Precisely my point: if armed force is necessary to secure secession, then it presumes an act of secession is a form of insurrection.

[justshutupandtakeit]

If Williams economics is as suspect as his historical knowledge and constitutional understanding I would hate to take his course.

These arguments are unrefutable and only the die-hard Defenders of Slaveocracy (D.S.s) even try to refute them. And we all know where their heads are.

[Rule of Law]

The Union's actions with regard to secession find explicit backing in the words of the Constitution, as is the basis for calling secession an act of insurrection.

But calling it an insurrection doesn't make it one. Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were insurrections -- groups within a state arming themselves and making war against the state or federal government.

The secession of Southern states was completely different. Soveriegn states exercised the rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and reserved to them in the Constitution. Rights that were commonly recognized by the other states. In fact, New York and Massachusetts were the first states to threaten secession shortly after the Constitution was ratified.

But we're not getting anywhere. Here's what I suggest. Let's both read this book, The Real Lincoln and discuss it then. I'll have to order to book online -- none of the bookstores or libraries around here seem to have it.

[Rule of Law]

Precisely my point: if armed force is necessary to secure secession, then it presumes an act of secession is a form of insurrection.

No. It is just the recognition that we live in a world where we often have to fight for our rights against tyrants and evildoers.

[Tralfaze McWatt]

Your argument is a strawman argument. I never said anything about the United People of America. However, it still remains a tangible fact that all U.S. citizens retain a rightful power to secede from the union by renouncing their citizenship. This present-day individual power to secede is protected by the tenth amendment to the constitution. The 10th amendment doesn't restrict secession power to only people, but subordinates an individuals power of secession to state power, or state rules for secession. Thus, according to the 10th amendment, a state government may legally forbid an individuals secession from the United States. Using a consistent interpretation of the same amendment, the Feds are equally prohibited from interfering with either an individuals power of secession or a states power of secession from the United States.

[Twodees]

Section VI doesn't come close to saying that "the interests of the individual states are inferior to that of the United States", unless one has been huffing airplane glue before reading the document. I'll get to some of your other garbage in a later post. Just wanted to let you know that you're severely uninformed.

[Twodees]

"Unrefutable" isn't a word. What you're groping for is "irrefutable" and the nonsensical argument you're trying to describe as irrefutable isn't even close.

[r9etb]

Well, you do get points for being candid.

As for your points, they're easily disposed of:

Section VI doesn't come close to saying that "the interests of the individual states are inferior to that of the United States", unless one has been huffing airplane glue before reading the document.

Article VI says This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... 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.

Did you catch those big letters, and what they said? To summarize: states cannot do anything that is contrary to the Constitution. No airplane glue required.

I'll get to some of your other garbage in a later post. Just wanted to let you know that you're severely uninformed.

If the rest of your analysis is as informed as this, I can't wait to read it.

[r9etb]

No. It is just the recognition that we live in a world where we often have to fight for our rights against tyrants and evildoers.

Or slaveholders.

[Rule of Law]

Or slaveholders.

A subclass of tyrant.

But now you might be tempted to justify Northern agression on a desire to free the slaves. That was not a Yankee goal until after Gettysburg. Lincoln himself repeatedly said that they had no intentions of freeing the slaves.

[r9etb]

Just to put things in perspective, consider the words of John C. Calhoun, as he spoke (wrote, actually) against the Clay Compromise of 1850.

In addition to making (from a pro-slavery perspective) many of the points that have heretofore been denied by your side of the debate, Calhoun said this:

What is to stop this agitation before the great and final object at which it aims--the abolition of slavery in the States--is consummated? Is it, then, not certain that if something is not done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession?

Calhoun goes on to presciently predict the actual course of events, and then asks, Having now, senators, explained what it is that endangers the Union, and traced it to its cause, and explained its nature and character, the question again recurs, How can the Union be saved?

His answer? The North has only to will it to accomplish it--to do justice by conceding to the South an equal right in the acquired territory, and to do her duty by causing the stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled--to cease the agitation of the slave question, and to provide for the insertion of a provision in the Constitution, by an amendment, which will restore to the South, in substance, the power she possessed of protecting herself before the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the action of this government.

All of this boils down to one thing: The Union can only be saved by letting the South keeps its slaves, and maintain an equal number of slave states (e.g., sectional equillibrium) among those being added to the Union. The South would seceed rather than giving up their slaves.

[KrisKrinkle]

Your argument is a strawman argument.

"Strawman argument: Stating a misrepresented version of an opponent's argument for the purpose of having an easier target to knock down."

If that's what you mean by "Strawman Argument," I assure you I had no such purpose in mind.

I was trying to point out that you were comparing apples and oranges. One "people" leaving a Union of States would not alter the Union of States. One State leaving the Union of States would alter the Union of States. There is a distinction to be made. I know you don't see it, but that does not mean it is not there. And I am aware of the other side of that last sentence.

However, it still remains a tangible fact that all U.S. citizens retain a rightful power to secede from the union by renouncing their citizenship.

I never heard that called secession before, but I'll grant you the point that it could be. (Note that you did not use the word "secession" in the post (591) I was replying to before.)

You say: The 10th amendment doesn't restrict secession power to only people, but subordinates an individuals power of secession to state power, or state rules for secession. Thus, according to the 10th amendment, a state government may legally forbid an individuals secession from the United States.

But Amendment X says:

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.

I don't see how you get any of what you said from Amendment 10.

Using a consistent interpretation of the same amendment, the Feds are equally prohibited from interfering with either an individuals power of secession or a states power of secession from the United States.>/I>

I bet you don't believe that the Feds don't count for that much. If there were no Feds, if the States had agreed to some other form of governmental organization, the argument would be pretty much the same (unless the agreement was more specific about the matter than the present Constitution.)

[KrisKrinkle]

Some of Ya'll/Youse need to broaden your perspectives. Try thinking about it from another point of view.

Based on Amendment 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.) could one or more States be ejected from the Union by the other States?

If individual States can elect to secede from the others, why can't the others elect to eject individual States?

Can we Please get rid of California, Massachusetts and some of the others (how about selected parts of them)?

I am not advocating a personal position, but just throwing something into the mix to see what accumulates at the top.

(How many can I reply to at once? Is it limited at all?)

[lentulusgracchus]

Art. I, Sect. 10 says nothing about relieving seceding states from their duty not to form confederations and engage in war.

Of course it doesn't -- secession isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. I thought we'd been over that.

And <Reagan voice> "There you go again" -- trying us on with "You didn't have permission !" Of course not. Revolutionaries never have permission -- except from the Founders. But then, the People need only their own permission, under their sovereignty. And the Peoples of the Southern States were sovereign over their destiny -- a fact which you will play hell denying. That is the nut of the whole argument. They were sovereign, but your side decided to deal with them as if they weren't.

The Peoples of the Southern States had every right to do what they did, under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which specifically protect rights not enumerated elsewhere, said rights including the right to revolution and the right to secede. Period. And you are in no position to gainsay their rights.

When the Union is dissolved, it's over.

Dissolving a union does not relieve you of your duties to your ex-partners.

When you are the Sovereign, it absolutely does. How could you get that wrong?

You keep trying to equate the sovereign People of Virginia with a corner tobacconist. No sale, amigo.

For example, partnership agreements generally prohibit partners who leave the firm from competing with the partnership.

This one didn't.

(Of course, the abject immorality of seceding to preserve slavery would still subject them to condemnation by any fair minded people.)

There you go again -- the South's innate corruption of spirit justifies anything.....a-ny-thing......that your nasty little bullyragging heart may desire. (Since you've commenced dealing in moral judgements.) I think the gender nazis call that one "blaming the victim" -- a favorite pastime of jailhouse lawyers and other criminals.

Go ahead, Ravinson. Tell us how much the 620,000 decedents deserved it.