Posted: 2/18/2015 Updated: 7/16/2015
Update As of 7/14/2015
Just read this interesting article “Historical Ignorance” by Walter Williams. The author herein also argues along my lines.
Here are some salient quotes from the above article (emphasis added):
- “During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, "A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."”
- “In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.”
- “On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."”
Trigger
Just read an article that quoted “Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.” from Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address of March 4, 1861.
I am not a legal expert and, unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time to do more research on this subject. My sincere apologies!
Some sources:
Introduction
I have written several blog posts here about Abraham Lincoln in which I argue he is a much overrated U.S. President. Certainly, he was very eloquent and had probably other, great talents.
But as I argued before, the American Civil War was not worth fighting and dying for, the immense bloodshed and lost treasure was way too grave and not justified.
Lincoln’s Statements
First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861
“Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”
Message to Congress in Special Session July 4, 1861
“The principle [secession] itself is one of disintegration, and upon which no government can possibly endure.”
A Parade Of Horribles
Apparently, Abraham Lincoln used this rhetorical device to justify a civil war when he equated secession and anarchy.
No Such Thing As A Perpetual Union
Historically, there are apparently several sources for the term “perpetual union” such as the full or formal name of the first constitution of the U.S., i.e. Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.
However, fact is that the union was voluntarily formed by the people of several independent, sovereign states. Such a union is not a one way street. By the same token the people of any state or any number of states can freely choose to leave the union as well. It is a matter of goodwill negotiation to handle the transition etc.
One can assume any language specifying an exit of a single state or the secession of several states was omitted on purpose, but it does not mean it is not possible when circumstances come about.
When a single or a group of states leave the union, the union still continues to exist.
The threat of exit or secession is also an important check on any centralization of power in a federal republic.
An exit or a secession is not a one way street either. Any former state can apply to accede again to the union etc.
The notion of a perpetual union also contrasts with the so called state nullification doctrine supported by among others Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
Failure Of The Exceptional Experiment Was Not An Option
The National Park Service appears to have suggested such a motivation by Abraham Lincoln (see source no. 2 above). Here is the quote (emphasis added):
“5. Secession would destroy the world's only existing democracy, and prove for all time, to future Americans and to the world, that a government of the people cannot survive.
Lincoln may have thought the fifth point was the most important. … Those who supported monarchies felt vindicated by the French disaster, but the United States experiment in self-government remained a thorn in their side. ”
This argumentation is seriously flawed! Was not the Confederate States a democracy or republic as well governed by a constitution similar to the remaining Union? Were not the individual state constitutions after secession not the same as before?
The Union did not abandon the U.S. Constitution after the secession!
Self-government in my understanding also includes how the people of an independent, sovereign state decide on their independence or whether they form or secede from a union with other states.
Other Ulterior Motives For The American Civil War
Apart from secession, there was possible the perceived threat of foreign powers taking advantage of the Confederate States. Had indeed e.g. any European power tried and succeeded to do that, then this could potentially arise to a casus belli. But Abraham Lincoln did not wait for it to happen.
The Confederate States were economically too important for the remainder of the Union to let them go.
The Birth Of Big Government
The nation did not have “a new birth of freedom” (Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address), but a birth of Big Government and less individual freedom! Probably, the emergence of Big Government started even earlier than the American Civil War, but the war certainly and profoundly promoted and accelerated this emergence.
Since the American Civil War all states have been forewarned that attempts for more independency will ultimately be crushed violently.
The federal government had assumed much more power over the states than at any time before! A peace economy was converted into a total war economy and so on.
No comments:
Post a Comment