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.

[4CJ]

I think that conclusion is a little premature from your point of view. I was trying to demonstrate what to me is a clear contradiction in terms, hoping to get you to understand.

And the men that WROTE the Constitution understood that the mythical "union" would be dissolved.

[4CJ]

It protected slave imports. It says nothing about waiting for those areas to become part of the confederacy.

Au contraire.  In Article III we have: "[t]he Confederate States may acquire new territory..." and "[o]ther States may be admitted into this Confederacy..."

"The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or territory not belonging to, this Confederacy."

I can't imagine that they considered the Northern states as members of the Confederate States of America, thus they must be "foreign". 

[Non-Sequitur]

OK, let's try it with different highlights:

"The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or territory not belonging to, this Confederacy."

Of course the confederacy would consider the United States a foreign country. Anything brought in from a foreign country would constitute an import. Ergo, the confederate constitution protected the importation of slaves.

[KrisKrinkle]

You and I seem to read differently the words they wrote. And I don't see how something that is mythical could be dissolved.

[4CJ]

You and I seem to read differently the words they wrote. And I don't see how something that is mythical could be dissolved.

If Madison and Hamilton, Washington and Jefferson, Mason and the rest thought that it would be dissolved, that's good enough for me.

[4CJ]

Ergo, the confederate constitution protected the importation of slaves.

Import from whom? Did the North still send ships to Africa to purchase slaves? Where are the slaves going to come from? The North certainly didn't practice slave trading anymore, did it?

[KrisKrinkle]

If Madison and Hamilton, Washington and Jefferson, Mason and the rest thought that it would be dissolved, that's good enough for me.

I would like to think you are joking with me.

I've done a dictionary search and I don't see that something that is "mythical" could have sufficient substance and reality to be dissolved.

I don't see how Madison and Hamilton, Washington and Jefferson, Mason and the rest could think anything that is "mythical" could be dissolved.

I don't see why you all of a sudden decided to modify the noun "Union" with the adjective "mythical."

I am afraid you are serious.

[4CJ]

Of course I'm serious. Hamilton, Madison and Jay wrote 85 Federalist Papers to convince Americans of the need to dissolve the not-so-perpetual union.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Of course I'm serious. Hamilton, Madison and Jay wrote 85 Federalist Papers to convince Americans of the need to dissolve the not-so-perpetual union.

It's been perpetual so far.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

Import from whom? Why the United States, of course. At the time the confederate constitution was adopted there were 8 slave-owning states in the United States. Two of them, Virginia and North Carolina, had done considerable business providing slaves to the deep south before the war, and the confederate leadership obviously didn't want to do anything to jeopardize that supply. And while United States law did forbid the importation of slaves from outside the United States I don't think that exporting them was illegal. And even if it was why would the confederate government care about violations of foreign law so long as their own demand for new slaves was met?

[FreeAtlanta]

1. The contract (the Constitution) is null and void, if a state withdraws from the Union. There is nothing treasonous about that. Actually, it is rather patriotic, in that it keeps the spirit of our founding fathers alive.

2. The northern politicians didn't care about preserving the union. They wanted the natural resources of the south. period.

[Non-Sequitur]

. The contract (the Constitution) is null and void, if a state withdraws from the Union.

Only if their actions are done legally. Otherwise it's a violation of the contract and they are free to take action against the violators.

The northern politicians didn't care about preserving the union. They wanted the natural resources of the south. period.

If that were true then what difference would it have made it the south seceeded or not? The north would still have been the prime market for an independent south's resources. The cost of getting them to northern markets wouldn't have changed. Your claim makes very little sense.

[4CJ]

Import from whom? Why the United States, of course.

Must have been billions of slaves up in the union states, eh? How are slaves that are already in the US imports?

Sorry, I forgot. Slavery had been outlawed up north ;o) so it was filled with happy free blacks, with wagon-loads of freed southern slaves arriving daily.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Must have been billions of slaves up in the union states, eh? How are slaves that are already in the US imports?

Sorry, I forgot. Slavery had been outlawed up north ;o) so it was filled with happy free blacks, with wagon-loads of freed southern slaves arriving daily.

It's hard to imagine you really are missing the import of this segment of the so-called CSA constitution.

When it was written, VA, TN, NC and one other state were still IN the United States.

Oh wait. No state ever left the U.S. In any case, those states had not assumed their wereguise when the CSA consstitution was written.

Walt

[FreeAtlanta]

The northern politicians didn't care about preserving the union. They wanted the natural resources of the south. period.

If that were true then what difference would it have made it the south seceeded or not? The north would still have been the prime market for an independent south's resources. The cost of getting them to northern markets wouldn't have changed. Your claim makes very little sense.

The North was putting undue tariffs on Southern goods to force Southerners to ship to them, instead of to Europe. This is why the South was nearly successful in getting France and/or England to help in direct military support. Had Gettysburg gone the Southern route, England was standing by to send in it's navy and troops to help the south.

Don't get me wrong. I am proud of the south and my ancestors, but I am, selfishly, happy that the war turned out the way it did. Otherwise, you and I wouldn't be here today.

[Non-Sequitur]

You just don't read a word I write, do you? No wonder you keep claiming that the confederate constitution outlawed slave imports, you probably haven't read that, either. As I have mentioned on several occasions, at the time the confederate constitution was adopted there were 8 slave holding states in the United States not in rebellion, and 1,521,000 slaves living in them. Two of those states, Virginia and North Carolina, had a thriving business selling slaves to the deep south states prior to the war. Rather than take a chance that this supply would be cut off, the confederate leadership specifically protected slave imports fron the United States. As it turned out, Davis got his war and North Carolina and Virginia joined the losing side so the clause wasn't necessary.

[4CJ]

It's hard to imagine you really are missing the import of this segment of the so-called CSA constitution.

And here I was, told by yankees that the south seceded to expand slavery. So to encourage it, they did what? Put a requirement into their Constitution that slaves from all over the world could be brought into the CSA?

[ohioman]

Why don't you secede from the Union.

[Texaggie79]

I have more claim to the Union than those that wish the south had separated from it. I'm patriotic to AMERICA, not just the South.

[Texaggie79]

BTW, if you are from Ohio, what the hell do you care about the Confederacy?