Walter Williams: Wrong on Secession

vanity ^ | 4/3/02 | Self

[Rodney King]

It had no moral case.

I agree. However, I am trying to debunk the notion that the right to secession can be based upon the law of the government. If so, then there is nor "right" to self-government at all.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Now please show me actions similar to the Brits by the federal government prior to 1860.

Not to get side tracked, but would you agree to secesstion if we changed the date to 2002? Looking at where freedom is now versus 140 years ago, has it gotten bad enough, and if not, just what would make the Great Walt finally allow his countrymen the right to self-determination?

If you want to cite Waco, Ruby Ridge, the 16th amendment or whatever for saying the system is broken now, you'll get no kick from me. But you simply can't make that argument for the situation in 1860.

Walt

[Rodney King]

Thanks for the quote. I agree with it, and I concur that the South did not have a case by those standards.

However, that does not change the fact that I beleive that people have a right to self-governement, and that such right can not be based upon the judgement of others, or else it is not a right at all. What if during the revolution, France, Russia, Germany and a whole bunch of other nations came in and said "well guys, you've made your case, but we just don't think it rises to the level of secession." We would have said, "piss off, it is not your judgement call, it is ours". So I agree with your assesment of the South's reasons for seceeding, but it is not our judgement call, it was theirs.

[billbears]

Really, the slave holders should have read the Constitution and the laws a bit more carefully and they wouldn't have had their applecarts upset so badly.

First, point out ONE law forbidding secession. There isn't one. Secondly, why would they think anything else. The military leaders had been taught secession was legal at West Point, the political leaders had followed in the footsteps of northerners like Timothy Pickering, George Cabot, and Alexander Hamiliton all of who called for secession on more than one occasion. None of those men were called down for their thinking and even had the backing more than once to go through with it. But for the fortuitous ending of the War of 1812, they would have.

So before you start down this road AGAIN look at the history of the men who came BEFORE lincoln in the north

[muleboy]

Absolutely correct!

Thank you for your exquisitely simple refutation of a shamelessly vain assertion of the legality of state-sponsored terrorism circa 1861.

[dwbh1342]

Not to get side tracked, but would you agree to secesstion if we changed the date to 2002? Looking at where freedom is now versus 140 years ago, has it gotten bad enough, and if not, just what would make the Great Walt finally allow his countrymen the right to self-determination?

From an earlier quote:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Are we currently under a system of Despotism? Here's what Merriam-Webster says "Despotism" is:

1 a : rule by a despot b : despotic exercise of power 2 a : a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power : ABSOLUTISM b : a despotic state

Does our ruler (Dubya) have "unlimited power"? Certianly not. Despite things that have happened politically and domestically that you might not agree with, were they done out of a design to further Despotism? Since we still have a two-party system with virtually equal power to send representatives to government, that would be no. So there is certainly no moral prerogative to secede today, as there was none to secede in 1860.

[joebuck]

Where your argument fails is that is presupposes that a State does/did not have a right to preacefully agree to succeed and withdraw from the Union. If a State were to do so, then it wouldn't be a State any longer and none of it's acts would be in violation of any of the sections of the Constitution you cited. Your whole argument has to be premised on the initial assertion that a peaceful decision to withdraw from the Union constitutes "insurrection". I cannot accept that premise.

Nowhere does the Constitution grant the Federal Govt. the right to prevent a State from peacefully deciding to withdraw. Since all powers not specifically granted to the Fed. Govt are reserved to the States or the People, why would a State not have the right to decide to withdraw? Once a State did withdraw it is no longer a member of the Union and thus would be no more bound by the other provisions you mentioned than any other soveriegn nation. I've got to go with Professor Williams on this one.

[r9etb]

since the duly-elected governments of those states were the civil authority.

Those duly-elected governments had authority only insofar as they do not contradict the Constitution.

[WhiskeyPapa]

First, point out ONE law forbidding secession.

You are a one note pony, aren't you?

The Supremacy clause in the Constitution says that it is supreme over anything in the laws of any state. Nothing in state law may withstand it. Since an ordinance or declaration of secession is a "thing" in state law, it cannot stand against the Supremacy Clause.

Not only that, the Judiciary Act of 1789 gives the power to the Supreme Court to adjudicate "civil controversies" between the states.

Was secession a civil controversy? The Supreme Court has power.

And of course, the Militia Act gives the power to the president to ensure that the laws of the United States are duly executed in all the states. If you can shoehorn secession into that, be my guest.

Walt

[bjs1779]

bttt

[Liberty Tree Surgeon]

By your own, dictionary-inspired standard, King George did not have absolute power, since he was bound by the Magna Carta.

Next.

LTS

[The Green Goblin]

Thank you for your exquisitely simple refutation of a shamelessly vain assertion of the legality of state-sponsored terrorism circa 1861.

If you're not willing to critque my arguments on a non-personal intellectual basis, then I have no interest in talking to you, muleboy

[WhiskeyPapa]

The military leaders had been taught secession was legal at West Point...

Like Robert E. Lee?

"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession."

Robert E. Lee January 23, 1861

In any case, there were plenty of military officers who didn't learn anything about the legality of secession -- such as Sam Grant and Bill Sherman, just to name a couple.

Walt

[dwbh1342]

By your own, dictionary-inspired standard, King George did not have absolute power, since he was bound by the Magna Carta. Next. LTS

Despotism is only one moral prerequisite. A tyrannical government that suppresses our right to self-determination is another. You're comparing apples and oranges.

[FirstFlaBn]

All that is needed is a constitutional amendment providing for the secession of the states that request it.

Are you really that dumb? Did it ever occur to you that with the supermajority required by your thesis, you could have any policy you wanted? Why in the Hell would you secede if you could dictate to the minority any policy you wanted?

Nutty as it is, let's try out your theory: because of the difficulty in amending the Constitution, a situation could develop where 74% of the states wanted to secede, but the remaining 26% opposed it. Nobody in their right mind in the ratifying conventions would have voted to surrender that much sovereignty. Such a surrender would be not only to the Federal government, but to the whim of a small minority of other state legislatures. They were in their right minds, unlike your analysis.

All attempts to agrue secession as Constitutionally prohibited ultimately come down to needing Lincoln's hallucination that the Union preceded the Constitution. All else is window dressing.

Actually, the secession issue did need a Constitutional amendment. An amendment to prohibit it.

[The Green Goblin]

Those duly-elected governments had authority only insofar as they do not contradict the Constitution.

Exactly. Since the Constituion does not explicity prohibit the secession of the states, that right is reserved (under Article X) to the states, or to the people.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Nowhere does the Constitution grant the Federal Govt. the right to prevent a State from peacefully deciding to withdraw.

The Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare and the common defense. If secession is inimical to that, Congress may act.

Walt

[dwbh1342]

All attempts to agrue secession as Constitutionally prohibited ultimately come down to needing Lincoln's hallucination that the Union preceded the Constitution. All else is window dressing.

?? Explain what you mean. As I understand it, the Constitution and Union were created simultaneously.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Exactly. Since the Constituion does not explicity prohibit the secession of the states, that right is reserved (under Article X) to the states, or to the people.

A right to maintain the Union is reserved by the people. So far, they -have- maintained the Union.

Walt