[r9etb]

IMHO

[freedomcrusader]

The secessionist states clearly violated almost every part of Section 10 -- especially that last clause

But if a state has seceded then it's no longer subject to any restrictions in the Constitution, since it is no longer a party to it.

Also, what about Article VII: The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Clearly no state could be forced to be part of the Union without its express consent. By giving consent to enter the Union, a state is supposed to forever surrender it's ability to withdraw its consent?

[stainlessbanner]

The only thing missing from this article is:

Article 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.

[babyface00]

It seems to me that there are good arguments on both sides of this. If this question hasn't been resolved 150 years after the WBtS, maybe its time for a Constitutional amendment that either expressly permits, or expressly denies the right of a state or states to seceed.

[x]

Good argument. I'm inclined to think though, that it was the course of events that determined the outcome. A more prudent, less confrontational South could have gotten what it wanted inside or outside the Union. The first mistake of the fireeaters was breaking up the Democratic party and burning their bridges to Northern sympathizers. Their second was not pursuing their ideas within the Constitutional framework through amendments, either to guarantee their interests in the Union or to dissove it by general consent. The third and crucial mistake was in firing on Sumter and touching off a reaction that would overwhelm them. So long as there was a stand-off Northerners and other Unionists were not inclined to use force to keep the rebel states in the union. Once the shooting started, constitutional arguments would be settled by the gun.

It's highly probable that disunion might eventually have meant war over the border states and Western territories, but it wasn't inevitable. In any case, a later conflict over more limited questions would not have been so destructive. Davis gambled either that using force would not bring war or that a war in Spring 1861 would bring more advantages to his side than an uneasy peace or a later conflict. This was not a winning gamble.

[Congressman Billybob]

Your post is incorrect.

I spend much of my time researching, writing about, and using the works of the Framers. Walter William's research is correct. Most of the Framers were of the view that states could as freely leave the Union as they had chosen to join it.

The legal / political premise of the Confederacy was correct, at the time they adopted it.

However, the ulimate way of losing an argument is to lose a war over the subject of that debate. So the answer to that question is now an emphatic no.

What Abraham Lincoln did in prosecuting the war to preserve the Union was quite similar to what Thomas Jefferson did in approving the Lousiana Purchase. Both actions were critical to the future of the nation. Both actions were beyond their apparent powers at the time they took them. Both actions were backed up by the Congress. Neither action was ever questioned in the Supreme Court.

Your questioning of Dr. William's assertion is off-base. He is correct. It was losing the Civil War, not any legal argument, that established that the position of the Confederacy was wrong.

Congressman Billybob

Click here to fight Shays-Meehan.

Click here for latest column: "When Billie Comes Marching Home Again."

[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.

[marron]

Lets look at the balance sheet:

Lincoln instituted military tribunals; the confederacy held humans in bondage.

Lincoln instituted a federal tax; the confederacy held humans in bondage.

Lincoln expanded the power of the executive; the confederacy held humans in bondage.

Lincoln laid the groundwork for public education; the confederacy held humans in bondage.

[marron]

paper money? did I forget paper money?

Lincoln introduced paper money; the confederacy held humans in bondage.

[Blood of Tyrants]

How could secession be against the principles our founding fathers put in the Constitution when our very first act as a nation was to SECEDE? (Please read the VERY first line of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.)

Lincoln wanted to try many southern leaders on charges of treason for seceding from the Union but NOT ONE PERSON WAS EVER TRIED and all charges were eventually dropped! Why not? Because almost every constitutional scholar of the time advised him that the prosecution WOULD LOSE. It would no doubt have been appealed to the Supreme Court and there the Union would have lost, too. What would that mean? Basically what we Southerners have always held, Lincoln conducted a war of agression and conquest.

BTW, the definition of a "civil war" is a war fought for control of a country. The Confederacy wanted only to control itself and the Union could do whatever it wanted.

[ravinson]

Let's face it, the U.S. Constitution has always been very very very ambiguous -- especially with regard to secession. But the Confederates weren't interested in establishing a Constitutional right to secession -- they were only interested in convincing their constituents that secession would occur without bloodshed because "the Yankees [were] all cowards and would not fight." (Eg. South Carolina Senator James Chesnut offered to drink all the blood shed as a consequence of secession.)

History has proven that the Confederate mentality was as grossly naive as it was morally bankrupt, but that won't stop the Confederate glorifiers (who curiously seem to be all Southerners who rely heavily on rednecks for their financial support) from trying to blame Abe Lincoln for every government abuse that has occurred since 1860. It saddens me to see Walter Williams eroding his credentials as a fine free market economist by buying into the Confederate glorifiers' delusional fantasies, but no one is perfect -- not even Abe Lincoln.

What none of these Lincoln bashers ever bothers to tell us is, though, is how they would have orchestrated the abolition of slavery quicker than he did.

[PatrioticAmerican]

This story is full of holes. The founding fathers knew that rebellion was the ONLY way a state would ever leave, as even a statement in the Constitution granting secession would never be upheld. NOTHING in the constitution grants relief. Why is that? Most founding fathers made statements about rebellion being necessary. That is what the Second Amendment is for, not hunting or personal safety. It is designed to allow for rebellion from a tyrannous government, and that can include secession. The states created the union, the states can destroy it. Can you name one thing in the Constitution that says that the entry into the union is one-way?

[PatrioticAmerican]

Nothing highlighted in the article supports the federal government to uphold the union at all costs. Nothing.

[ColdSteelTalon]

You can say what you want about the secession of the South, but the fact is the Constitution has been consistently violated by the federal government whenever it "needed" to. Look how many times it tried to print worthless paper money or start a central bank without amending the constitution. So lets not try to peg the South for a constituional violation when the federal government at the time tried to print worthless money and forcibly draft men against their will. Both at the time were flagrant violations of the constitution.

[M Kehoe]

Good thread.

5.56mm

[angry beaver norbert]

Just a question for thought: The states rights thing was settled? in 1865, supposedly... why then does California get to trample the Constitution by infringing on what the document says "shall not be infringed" ?????

[TopHat1948]

The Declaration of Independence is just that--a statement of the reasons we separated ourselves from British rule. It is not a constitution and does not establish rules for governance. While it's value to America as a statement of principle cannot be understated, it does not rise to the level of the Constitution in determining the rules under which our government operates. I would refer you to the statement of Daniel Webster about the idea of secession/nullification. He correctly points out that a Constitution which allowed unilateral secession is not a constitution at all --it is anarchy. Lincoln, who revered the Declaration of Independence, simply pointed to the preamble of the constitution ("We the People") and argued that the "states" had not entered into the Constitution, rather, the people had. (the Articles of Confederation refer to an agreement between states while the Constitution refers to the consent of the people). And, Lincoln argued, that since the people had never voted to secede, secession was unconstitutional. I was upset by Williams clearly unwarranted assertion that Lincoln's election "backed the south into a corner." What Williams, and I assume DiLorenzo (I have not yet read the book) fail to address is how Lincoln would have governed if there had been no secession. Does anyone know what the composition of the Congress during Lincoln's term would have been without secession? I have read that it would have been heavily Democrat. I suspect if the southern states had stayed in the Union, Lincoln would have been regarded as an earnest failure--much like some of his predecessors.

[marron]

The 10th ammendment is one of the most important ammendments, in terms of guaranteeing our liberty. It is an extension of the concept of the separation of powers. Executive, judicial, legislative, on the one hand; federal, state, local on the other.

It is essential that we resurrect the 10th ammendment, and begin to carve out a wider area of state, and citizen's, sovereignty.

But this is not an exercise in high school civics. The purpose of all this is not a more perfect debating society, but to define and defend the liberty of the individual.

Not the state.

And state government, and local government, can be as dangerous to an individual's freedom as can the federal. More so; the raw face of government power is more likely to visit you in the form of a sheriff's deputy than an FBI agent.

It was linking the 10th ammendment to slavery and the defense of the old Jim Crow laws that killed it, made it impossible to defend. And continueing to tie it to those issues only does damage if you believe in the 10th and if you believe in freedom.

Remember, states' rights is not freedom, the use of state laws to violate the constitutional rights of your fellow citizens is not freedom. Freedom is freedom.

[Question_Assumptions]

You should send Walter Williams an email with this essay. You should be able to find his email address on the web.

[YadaYada]

The Feds have taken over many of the states rights. There are many states that have this in their constitution. In fact, Arizona added it to theirs during the Clinton administration. Go figure. In all I have studied in history, a state does have the right to secession, but I bet you could not find enough voters to support it in this age of federal handouts.

[KrisKrinkle]

Some one said you should send your thoughts to Mr. Williams. I agree, but I think if you do you should include as much of what follows as you can work in:

Arguably the United States was formed as a perpetual union under the Articles of Confederation, and its government was reorganized under the Constitution leaving the perpetual union part intact. One time or another, some of the States tried to "bust the deal" and were forced to "face the wheel." In this case, the "Wheel" was a form of Judicial Combat. Arguably, Lincoln and the Federal Government acted on behalf of the States which did not agree with the decision of other States to back out of a deal they had agreed to (before the Constitution existed).

Note: The United States existed as a Perpetual Union by mutual agreement of the States prior to the Constituion. It was not established by the Constitution and does not depend on the Constitution for its existence. The Federal Gorvenment is not the United States. It is a governing mechanism or agent agreed to by the States. If the States convened a Constitutional Convention today, they could amend the Constitution to abolish the Federal Government and establish a Constitutional Monarchy as the governing mechanism, and the United States would still exist. (The thought of a Constitutional Convention held today is really scary considering the quality of the potential participants.)

Note the following:

Articles of Confederation

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777 In force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781

*******

The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union: But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident-Hence results the necessity of a different organization. (Letter of the President of the Federal Convention, Dated September 17, 1787, to the President of Congress, Transmitting the Constitution.)

*******

Constitution of the United States : Preamble

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(Emphasis added.)

*******

This looks like an argument that Lincoln had some justification in trying to preserve the Union.

I came across this recently at Project Avalon and thought I'd throw it into the mix.<