Sandefur and the Civil War, Cont.
1. Timothy thinks there is no evidence that Jefferson thought that the Congress could demand that a state comply with its laws or secede or leave the Union. Well, it is a very reasonable interpretation. My point is that secession is a double-edged sword. A state can threaten to secede, but the other states can, with the help of their agent, the federal government, threaten to kick a state out of the Union, unless it complies. It’s freedom of association in action. Jefferson lived in less PC times than we do, and that freedom was cherished throughout the realm.
2. Suppose it’s true that “the people reconsidered their sovereignty, and created a new institution, wiping the slate clean, more or less, and instituting a sovereign federal government, while vesting other elements of their sovereignty in state governments.” This simple statement does not attempt to prove that those “other elements of their sovereignty” do not include the legal Constitutional right to secede. But we can say more. The Constitution enumerates certain particular limited powers that the federal government has. The Bill of Rights is in principle unnecessary, because the freedoms secured therein could be deduced from the text of the original Constitution. Where in that document does it say that the “more perfect Union” can only expand and never contract in territory, member states, or people? The Union was certainly not called “perpetual” or anything like that. So, where does the Constitution say that the feds can or must preserve the union by preventing any and all secessions?
Here is another argument. The Constitution had to be ratified by nine out of thirteen states, and any amendment must be agreed to by 3/4th of state legislatures. Before that 2/3rd of the Senate must also vote for it, Senators being chosen by state legislatures until the 17th amendment was passed in 1913. Speaking of Madison, he also wrote that “it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.” (F #39) A clear case can be made that the Constitution is in part a creature of the people and a creature of states.
In other words, Timothy can point to the Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union…” But I can point to the Postscript: “Resolved, That the preceding Constitution… should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification… Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of nine States shall have ratified this Constitution,” etc.
3. Timothy has misunderstood my point about individual secession. His argument is that the Constitution was not a compact between the states but between the people living on the territory to be overshadowed by the future federal government. Therefore, no state could lawfully secede. But if secession by states is to be considered illegal for that reason only, then secession of individuals should be perfectly legal, precisely because the federal government resulted from a compact between them. Any person who made a compact could break it; otherwise, he and his children would be slaves in perpetuity, and as Rothbard well demonstrated, one cannot alienate his will. Surely, then, I should be able to form my own nation where my house stands. But what if I am able to convince the majority of my fellow Ohioans to join forces with me in declaring independence of the United States, that is, forming a new country with themselves and their private properties ? If I can do it alone, then that majority can do it, too, without physically leaving the United States or being imprisoned for “treason.” There, you have your perfectly legal secession of a state.
4. If Timothy does not advocate massive wars to punish bribe-taking officials, then neither should he defend a military assault of the North on the South to punish slave-owners or to fight for the rights of slaves.
5. Sumter, Shmumter; there is evidence that Lincoln provoked the South into firing the first shot. At any rate, that’s just one of the many INUS causes (an insufficient but necessary component cause which is a part of an unnecessary but sufficient total cause) which sparked the war. There were a whole bunch of reasons for the Civil War, and both slavery and economics were still more INUSes.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:13 am
[...] Go to the author’s original blog: Sandefur and the Civil War, Cont. [...]
July 13th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Pat Buchanan’s new book makes some great points but falls apart when he spins he tries to spin his antisemitism in to something he thinks people can digest. He poises him self in a position where you have to agree with him, but then drops a bomb in your lap. Nice tactics, but none the less futile. I suggest reading this book review on his new book.