The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Secession Day

Posted on | December 20, 2010 | 31 Comments

Secession Meeting at the Mills House, Charleston, S.C., 1860

On this day in 1860, South Carolina voted to secede from the Union, and this 150th anniversary inspires historian Paul Rahe to publish his endorsement of the “indissoluble union” theory:

The legitimacy of secession has been debated ever since. In my view, secession was unlawful. There is provision in the United States constitution for ratification and for the admission of new states into the Union. There is no provision for secession.
It is true, of course, that – in ratifying the Constitution – Virginia specified “that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” But this unilateral assertion on Virginia’s part is not and could not be an assertion of a legal right under the Constitution – which, even if viewed as a contract, recognizes no such right. Rather, it is a reassertion of the natural rights that underpin the right to revolution asserted in the Declaration of Independence, and it applies to the people of the United States and not to the state of Virginia or even the people of the state of Virginia as such.

Of course, this theory effectively abolishes the states, rendering them nothing but administrative jurisdictions of the unitary and all-powerful national government — the negation of federalism.

From the standpoint of political science, it makes no difference whether in your opinion Southern secession was wise or just in 1860, or whether you are in favor of secession as a general idea, and it certainly makes no difference what your opinion is as to the controversies over slavery that provoked the crisis of 1860-61.

The fundamental question is, “Who ratified the Constitution, and what sort of union was created by that ratification?” And the answers to those questions are not, nor can they be, a matter of mere opinion. There are historical facts to be considered, and which Rahe glosses over.

The American colonies which declared their independence from Great Britain in July 1776 made it as clear as possible what their intent was:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

The colonial uprising we now know as the American Revolution had been under way for more than a year. The battles of Lexington and Concord were fought in April 1775 and the Battle of Bunker Hill in June 1775. The provisional government represented by the Second Continental Congress — which also convened in 1775 — voted for independence on July 2, 1776.

All of these things, then, had been done prior to the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. So when Rahe refers to “the right to revolution asserted in the Declaration of Independence” — well, this was a right that patriot militiamen and Continental troops had been actively exercising at the peril of their lives for some 15 months before it was ever “asserted.” And had they lost the war, they’d have been hanged as traitors to the Crown.

So much, then, for “the right to revolution” — a right entirely dependent on the fortunes of war.

The union of “Independent States” described in the Declaration was therefore a military alliance for mutual self-defense, as the representatives of the rebellious colonies “in Congress, Assembled” pledged their common purpose. There could be no separate peace — the King and Parliament could not hope to enter into negotiations with Rhode Island or North Carolina, seeking a treaty that would break the alliance.

By the time it voted for independence and issued the Declaration, Congress had already appointed a committee to write a plan of common government. The Articles of Confederation were submitted to the states in 1777, but not finally ratified by all the states before 1781. The American victory at Yorktown in 1781 to all effects ended the Revolution, the peace secured in 1783 by the Treaty of Paris, which names the states whose independence was thereby recognized:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states . . .

So, by their united effort in war, these states had won their independence. Their common government under the Articles of Confederation was so severely flawed that, only six years after Yorktown, the need for changes led to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. While the delegates to that convention had originally been authorized only to amend the Articles, it became obvious that the best thing to do was to start from scratch. Having overstepped their original authority, the Convention recognized that the new framework of government they had wrought would require ratification, and it was two years before a necessary nine of the 13 states had ratified it.

This ratification was conducted in each state by a special convention, and the debate was quite intense. Patrick Henry, among others, was in the anti-Federalist faction, warning that the Constitution granted too much power to the national government. It was to allay these concerns that the Bill of Rights was adopted immediately after ratification. Among those amendments, the 10th gave especial protection to the states, limiting the government to those powers delegated by the Constitution, and reserving the balance to the several states.

Now, we must pay careful attention to a key point about the Constitution, namely Article 7:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Which is to say that as many as four of the original states might have, by refusing to ratify the Constitution, exempted themselves from that government. And when nine states had ratified the Constitution, two of the largest states, New York and Virginia, still had not ratified it. It was not until 1790 that Rhode Island finally ratified — by which time the Bill of Rights, including the 1oth Amendment, had already been submitted to the states for ratification.

The idea that tiny Rhode Island might have gone its separate way might seem absurd — well, it would have spared us the obnoxious Sheldon Whitehouse — but its long delay in ratifying the Constitution shows that at the time of the Founding, there was a serious concern that this new government might be too powerful, a threat to those “Free and Independent States.”

Did these states, by ratifying the Constitution, thereby permanently forfeit their independence?  Is there nothing the federal government could do — no act of the president or Congress, no decision of the Supreme Court — that would justify any state in saying, “OK, you’ve gone too far now”?

It would seem that Paul Rauh answers that question in the negative, that he denies that the states have retained any shred of their original independence, that no state has any just recourse if its citizens should feel that the federal government has overstepped its rightful bounds.

The states are therefore no longer states in any meaningful sense, and we no longer in fact have a federal system of government, but rather one vast unified empire of 300 million subjects, with whatever vestiges of the “states” remain being subject to obliteration so soon as it suits a majority in Congress (or the Supreme Court) to do so.

Ideas have consequences, as Richard Weaver once famously observed, and so it is with the idea of the indissoluble union. (Evidently, it’s like La Cosa Nostra — once you join, there’s no quitting.) What we now have is a national government without any effective limit to its power, except so far as regular elections may have any limiting effect. But if this also fails and the advocates of an all-powerful national government should obtain a permanent majority, what remedy can there be under Rahe’s theory?

As it is now, California and Illinois — both states deeply in thrall to the advocates of unlimited government — teeter on the verge of bankruptcy. Should the citizens of Texas or any other more thrifty state be compelled to pay for the federal bailout of a bankrupt state?

Even if one were to stipulate that South Carolina’s secession in 1860 was ill-advised and unjustified, it still does not follow that the states, in joining the Union, thereby foreswore forever any prior claim to sovereignty.

Paul Rahe should be glad he’s a professor of history in Michigan, and not in Texas. Those Texans can be mighty touchy about their independence, you know.

UPDATE: My good friend Stogie calls Professor Rahe “a misinformed Northern apologist,” which seems a tad too hostile. While we cannot rule out the possibility that Professor Rahe’s views are inspired by the all-too-common error of boreal supremacy — the belief that all things Northern are superior to all things Southern — I would not accuse anyone of such a hateful prejudice without solid evidence.

Stogie also reproduces a famous handbill:

C’mon, can I get a “Yeee-haaaww,” y’all?

Bookmark and Share
Category: History

Comments

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    Great minds think alike. I also rebutted Paul Rahe at this link:
    http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2010/12/150-years-ago-today-south-carolina.html .

    I will link to your related article.

  • http://www.uncoverage.net GoldenEagle4444

    Texas is a Republic…..and “Don’t mess with ‘em”. If they decide to split, they’d instantly become the 7th largest country in the world. I doubt they’ll be paying Californicate’s tab.

  • Robbyahm

    Dont we just love history! 150 years after South Carolina seceded, who would have though that they would elect their first non-white, non male Chief Executive in the great state of South Carolina(!)

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    Robbyahm,

    Yes, and I am delighted that she was elected!

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    GoldenEagle4444, if Texas ever did split, I’d move there in a heart beat!

  • http://twitter.com/1389 1389

    Great post!

    Here’s our take on this, from 1389 Blog:

    http://1389blog.com/2010/12/20/celebrating-secession/

  • Michael Lonie

    Basically the Southern aristocracy didn’t want to take seriously the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation of liberty, or admit that their side lost the election because they stupidly split the Democratic Party’s vote. So they said “It’s my bat and my ball and if I can’t pitch, I’m taking them and going home.” Then they flounced out of the union for the sake of retaining slavery. Certainly those parts of the Southern states that wanted to remain in the union, and tried to secede from the seceding states, got short shrift from the seceders.

    Secession was illegal and done for a bad cause.

  • http://dailytimewaster.blogspot.com/ picturerock

    Texas, before joining the union, was actually an independent country, with their own currency, foreign policy, and everything else. Because of this unique status, when they joined the union, the treaty agreement made between Texas and the United States allowed Texas to succeed. This is a right that only Texas has, but if they did, you can bet that a wave of more conservative states would follow them, making another civil war difficult to maintain. Even parts of blue states would make a run for it, an example being the central valley and mountain parts of California. In the end, the liberal states would be reduced to mere rumps of their former selves, or even city states with limited hinterlands. Might be a good thing if Texas gets things started, because this country definitely needs a reset.

  • Joe

    Slavery’s days were numbered. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson recognized that back in the day.

    The war was fought by brave men over real principle, but it is over now and we are a union again. Let us strive to live to the principles of the Revolution.

  • http://www.southtexian.com Mike LaRoche

    the treaty agreement made between Texas and the United States allowed Texas to succeed.

    Actually, Texas was admitted to the Union in 1845 not by an annexation treaty, but by a joint resolution of the Congress of the United States of America. President John Tyler signed the American joint resolution on March 1, 1845 offering Texas admission to the Union. On June 16, 1845 President Anson Jones of Texas called the Texas Congress into session and on July 4, 1845, a convention of elected Texan delegates met – both to decide whether or not to accept the American offer of annexation. Both bodies voted to accept annexation, with the convention then drawing up a state constitution for Texas that was approved by the Texas electorate in October 1845. The Congress of the United States then formally voted to admit Texas to the Union on December 29, 1845. The formal transfer of power took place at a special ceremony on February 19, 1846, when President Anson Jones handed control of the Texan government to the state’s newly-elected governor, James Pinckney Henderson. At that time, Governor Henderson proclaimed: “The final act in this great drama is now performed; the Republic of Texas is no more.”

    At no point during the annexation proceedings was the issue of the legality of secession addressed. However, secession is certainly a viable option for Texas, as it is for any state. Secession is, legally, a gray area – it is neither legal or illegal. But that is a moot point. Our present union of states is a voluntary one, and as such any state has the implicit right to leave if it so chooses.

    Moreover, I firmly agree that neither the state of Texas, nor any other fiscally responsible state, should be liable for the depredations and fiscal irresponsibility of California or other places similarly situated. Texas did not make the mess; it therefore has no responsibility to clean it up.

    C’mon, can I get a “Yeee-haaaww,” y’all?

    Reckon so. Yee-haaaww!

  • Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » The Secession of South Carolina

  • http://twitter.com/JoeMarier Joe Marier

    You know that Ron White line, about having the right to remain silent… but not the ability? I think that was the basic position of the South. A right that one cannot successfully defend against the adversary is hardly a right at all.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3DLOHB36Q3XRSEL5L44KUQ64ZQ Nathan

    Under the Constitution, Congress must approve the admission of a new state (and if a state is formed out of a larger state, then that state must also approve. Which is why it’ll be a cold day in hell before I recognize West Virginee, but I confess that’s mostly because every structure over two feet tall is named after Robert C. Byrd.)

    After US v. Texas, the issue was settled (or so they say). But I propose a compromise. It stands to reason that a state wishing to leave should be able to do so with approval of Congress (with its own delegation abstaining, natch), and any counties within a state that wish to become a seperate polity must get the permission of said state and Congress. We all understand this. If Hawaii wanted to leave, and the rest of the nation was glad to be rid of them, it would only need two votes: One in the Hawaiian legislature, and one in Congress. No one would cry and scream about perpetual union. As a side note, we forget that long before “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegience in 1954, the controversial part of it was the word “indivisible.”

    See, once you join the union, the other states have a stake in you, politically, economically, and culturally, to say nothing of all the roads, docks, etc. built with common funds to further unity and commerce. They deserve a say, and a state should only be able to leave when both sides agree to it. Similarly, no state should be forced OUT of the union without their consent. (I’m looking at you, Iowa. We all know you deserve it.)

    That doesn’t mean you can never unilaterally secede, but you better be willing to fight.

    The larger point that RSM is making is this one: The primary political unit in the United States is… the states. It seems trivial, but it’s essential. The states create their own counties and cities and can abolish or overrule them as they see fit. And the states created the federal government as well, voluntarily ceding some powers to it, but retaining all others.

  • Michaelsimitz

    There is no provision for Secession in the constitution, but there is for admission. What is the mechanism? How would you determine the disposition of federal property? National debt? Property claims by citizens of other states? What of state and local officials who take an oath to uphold the constitution? My only quibble with Rahe is that the natural right to revolution could be the people or the state (does it really matter?). And the basis for that natural right is might. You lost the war and thus could not secede. You had no other legal or constitutional recourse as there was/is no such mechanism (and none was taken).

    P.S. Its arguments like these that give contemporary federalists a bad name and associates them with slavery.

  • The Osprey

    Has Charles Johnson found any Confederates under his bed yet?

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    Michael, absolutely none of your points would justify invasion and war against the seceding states. South Carolina did offer to pay for Fort Sumter but never received an answer from Lincoln, who bound and determined to start a war.

    There is no prohibition of secession in the Constitution and therefore it falls under the 10th amendment, the rights of the states.

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    So Joe, you’re saying tyranny is legitimate if its victims cannot successfully resist aggression? Tibet is therefore a legitimate section of China, as Poland was of Germany and the Philippines were of Japan.

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    Well said, Mike.

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    Joe, but it is important to stress that secession was and continues to be a valid and LEGAL option. The left has been aggressively pushing this country towards socialism for decades and have recently accelerated the pace. If they continue to dismantle the Constitution (via legislation and judicial fiat) then I want the option of secession.

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    Michael, that’s B.S. Secession was and is legal and Abraham Lincoln was a sectional president (pro North and anti South) who was elected by a small minority. Whatever their reasons, the South had the right to secede. It’s called “self-government,” “self-determination” and “consent of the governed,” all very American concepts.

  • http://twitter.com/1389 1389

    Good for you, Stogie!

    Secession may be the only way that we can stop the federal government from giving away the store to our Muslim enemies (who were, and STILL ARE, slave traders by the way)!

  • http://twitter.com/1389 1389

    I can tell you that I, personally, am NOT under CJ’s bed. Nor am I anywhere near California, thank the Lord.

  • http://saberpoint.blogspot.com Stogie Chomper

    1389, excellent point about Islamization. I would opt for secession any day than submit to dhimmitude!

  • Pingback: The Moral Liberal

  • http://twitter.com/PatinMichigan RightWingMole

    YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAW!

    How’s that?

  • http://www.southtexian.com Mike LaRoche

    Thanks, Stogie.

  • Pingback: A must read essay from The Other McCain « The Daley Gator

  • http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/ Old Rebel

    You and Stogie are right — DC is hell-bound to “elect a new people” in order to expand its power. A people under a unifying culture are self-regulating, whereas an empire needs a powerful government to hold it together. They know what they’re doing, and hopefully, we, the people will realize what we need to do.

  • Pingback: Assorted thoughts as Christmas gets closer « Da Techguy's Blog

  • Pingback: Secession Day « Secession and Nullification — News & Information

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_BTU6J64N5VYIFHFQASBAATQMKM george b

    You are absolutely right Mike. If any choose to question what you have said here, they should do the research for themselves. A good start would be reading the Lincoln speaches, from the times before his official elected time as a politician through his carreer.
    He stated more than once that any state or section of the Nation would be welcomed to leave the Union if they so desired and had the power or mechanism to do so. He also stated that he had no quarel with those states who held to slavery as an institution.

    I would have anyone who questions the validity of Texas’ independence or it’s right to it, look at the site of Sons Of Confederate Veterans and take a look at historical records that give Texas the right to be an independent Nation.

    I declare that I am a misplaced Citizen of Texas and that as soon as Texas is once again recognized as The Republic Of Texas, I, like those who fought at the side of Sam Houston, my kin so many years ago, will throw off these chains of slavery under the whip of Washington and return to that God Given Nation of Texas.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE