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.
And if those provisions were ever to find themselves in conflict with Article VI, they would be invalid.
Those who murdered from 20 to 40,000 blacks after the war weren't racist either I suppose?
Tennessee did not have to ratify it. Amendments become part of the Constitution when three-quarters of the states have ratified it. The amendment is binding on the remaining states, as per Article VI.
If that's in the Tennessee constitution, Article VI also makes clear that it is invalid.
There has also been proof of forgery for the 16th to be "passed".
So you say.
As has been shown above, even if secession is "permitted" by the Constitution, the steps required to enact secession are not.
More neo-confederate mythology.
Here's a link to all of the Texas Annexation Documents Why don't you show us the clause that gives Texas the right to secede. The only right Texas had in annexation that other states did not was the right to break itself into as many as five states if it chose to and Congress approved. Other than that, it was no different than any other state.
As for the oft-mentioned Virginia 'right to secede' if you study the ratification document, you will find that it, like New York's, is a conditional ratification of the Constitution based on the future inclusion of a Bill of Rights. That Bill of Rights was inserted making that clause moot.
Thus, joint jurisdiction over states was given to the federal Congress and to the legislatures of the given states. (For that reason I think the State of West Virginia is still unconstitutional [no offense to WVers here], since the Virginia legislature never agreed to let it go... although, not being a studied up on the subject I'd like to hear other FReepers' take on that...)
That's a tough one. Maybe they thought the Virginia legislature didn't get a say because Virginia did not consider herself to be one of the United States at the time. Or maybe they thought the area wasn't under the jurisdiction of Virginis at the time.
Note that if I was a West Virginian after the War Between the States, I would not have liked the idea of having to go back to being a Virginian. That would have been, shall we say, uncomfortable. And maybe unhealthy.
The following link might interest you. http://www.wvculture.org/history/journal_wvh/wvh30-1.html
(Of course everyone on this thread understands that the problem only arises because Virginia was one of the original States. The rest of the States were formed with boundaries on lands that belonged to the United States as a union. These lands came into the possession of the United States through conquest, purchase and treaty. These lands were organized as Terriories. If the leislature of any State established from such Terrirtories wished to secede, they would have in all honor and equity had to return the lands to the possession of the United Staes--from whence they came. The United States could then have allowed the formation of new States, possibly with different boundaries. This of course would not have affected private ownership. Any private owner who agreed to the secession of the State in question could still own land just like any expatriate or foreigner.)
He says: " ...some readers concluded differently" despite "... abundant evidence that most of the Founders took the right of state secession for granted."
"Spose he's paying attention?
As to insults, your whole silly train of "logic" is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has read the Constitution. Since you can't cite Article section and clause for anything you're claiming, it's obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that you've simply accepted the ridiculous positions of several unhanged traitors from the 19th century and you're pretending that the proof of what they claimed is right before our eyes in the text of the Constitution.
That's absurd and you know it unless you're mentally unbalanced. Making absurd statements such as the ones you've made, then claiming that the plain text of the Constitution reads as your assertions require that it reads is the work of a disturbed mind.
Boiled down to its essence, your argument is this: "the Constitution simply must contain what I say it contains because if it doesn't I'll look like a fool." Well, son, you look like a fool because the document contains not a single syllable to prohibit the withdrawal of a state, nor does it contain any grant of authority to the federal government to coerce a state by miltary force to remain in the union.
Now, defend this piece of fantasy from your vanity:
"The individual states are bound to remain part of the United States, both by the ratification of the Constitution and by their oaths of affirmation to support the Constitution."
This is supposed to be your grand summation and it's pure unsupported balderdash. Show in the text of the Constitution where the states are so bound. There is nothing binding upon any state which doesn't appear in the original articles or in any amendment. If conditions could be created out of thin air from the imaginations of those who wished that those conditions existed in the document, then no Constitution would be necessary or even possible. Most absurd of all is your attempt to establish that the states swore some oath or other. How on earth does a state swear an oath?
It's amazing that this thread ran to over 600 responses when you've been utterly unable the entire time to defend a single one of your bizarre contentions. I'll make you a deal, though. You defend your "summation" as I've quoted it to you, using the text of the Constitution and showing the specific language which backs your assertions, and I'll accept the rest of your assertions unquestioned.
That is very plain English, son. It says plainly that powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are all reserved state powers. That clearly means everything not specifically delegated. Your version is that everything is a federal power unless specifically reserved to the states.
Given the level of your ability to understand the language used in an agreement, any contracting I do with you will require total payment in advance.
I know that what I an stating as truth is what is being disputed. Your 624 deals with the AoC which was no longer in effect at the time of the secession of the Southern states and is not germane to the discussion. I'll look at your 215 later and respond if it's interesting.
The "more perfect union" established in the Constitution very obviously didn't include any pretensions to the perpetuity of the agreement as the AoC had. If it had, surely the literate men who wrote the text would have included it.
Are you in the habit of challenging contractors you do business with and insisting that language nonexistent in your contract with them be honored as though it were there? If so, you probably don't have any repeat associations with contractors.
Also, you really should get beyond the Avalon project of the pinkos of Yale and do your own study. Everywhere in the Constitution that the phrase "the United States" appears when describing powers and obligations, it is in reference to the federal government. In the language of the Constitution, the "United States" refers to the government being created in its articles. This is to differentiate between the actions, powers and responsibilities of the individual states and the actions, powers and responsibilities of the newly created government representing the union of the individual states.
Lincoln had every justification in preserving the union, including his oath of office. What he was not justified in doing was attacking a new nation formed of states which had formerly been part of the US but who had left because of the intentions of Lincoln's party. Lincoln still had a union to defend but he chose instead to attack a new nation which wasn't threatening his union and which was not under his control as president. His war to subjugate and force the return of those states can hardly be called "preserving the union". It more properly consisted of defeating a newly formed nation to add its territory to the territory of the US and to forever change the relationship of all the formerly sovereign states to the newly sovereign central government.
You'll never hear any criticism of that atrocity from the marxists of Yale.
It's difficult to respond in a civil manner to you, seeing as how you are long on insults and very short on facts.
I suggest you go and read Article VI, which states that the Constitution is superior to state laws or constitutions, and which also requires state officials to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. You need not hunt up your own personal copy of the Constitution -- I helpfully provided the relevant portions of Article VI in the original post, and also in many of my replies.
Since you can't cite Article section and clause for anything you're claiming,
I hesitate to call you a liar.
Unfortunately, I have consistently cited Article, section, and clause, both in my original post, and in my responses. I've even highlighted the Constitutional language by use of a different font color.
That you could have missed such a thing -- even in my responses to you -- indicates either that you have not read anything in this thread and are thus arguing from ignorance, or that you are lying.
Either way, it's a poor reflection on you.
Where does the Constitution refer to the formation of a union of States except in the Preamble? The Preamble says: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,.." which I read to mean they intended to perfect the union they were already in, not form a new one.
The member states were the same, but the form of union differed.
So it was still the same States which had previously agreed to form a perpetual union known as the United States.
...is not germane to the discussion.
I disagree. I think it might be germane as a matter of Common Law (although I am not sure of that). I have to think it is germane in that I can't find anything that says "The current United States is hereby dissolved and a new United States (consisting of the same member states) is hereby formed. Absent such a statement, I don't see how else to view the United States under the Constitution but as a continuation of the United States under the AoC.
I don't believe we are going to come to an agreement on this.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." presupposes the existence of a United States which the people are trying to perfect. It pertains to the improvement of something already in existence, like saying "I am going to be a better person."
Also, you really should get beyond the Avalon project of the pinkos of Yale and do your own study.
Are you saying that the Yale versions of the documents in question are not true and faithful versions? That would be a scandal that you should go public with. What Web resources do you use and how are the versions of documents held by those resources different from the ones at Project Avalon?
I'll try and respond to the rest of your post later. I still don't think we are going to reach agreement thought.
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.