Before I kick this rant off, I should disclose that I know Tom in real life. He and I went to business school together. I was also very excited when I learned that he had discovered the work of Ayn Rand (He probably understands now some of the rants I went on in our business ethics classes.) and was impressed. So, I was very disappointed this afternoon when this post from his blog came up in my reader: In Honor of Lincoln’s Birthday.
Now, I have no particular love of Lincoln except that he waged a war in a way that the the United States has never done since WWII. So, I wasn’t all that dismayed to learn from Tom’s post that Lincoln did support a large number of distasteful government actions including the Fed and corporate subsidies.
What dismayed me about this post was the support for the claim that states have a right to secession. Let me be clear about this: states and regions do not have a right to a peaceful secession.
I don’t care that Thomas Jefferson or anyone else may have argued to the contrary.
When a state or region claims to secede, they are announcing a claim that they are no longer subject to the laws of the land. This would be like a gang announcing that they are not going to allow the police to protect people in their territory. It is, in short, an announcement of rebellion and the government must make an effort to put it down.
The only way the Confederacy could have maintained their secession from the United States would be if they had won the Civil War they started. They didn’t. They lost in a big, horrible way.
Here is what Ayn Rand said about states’ rights in the Virtue of Selfishness in her essay, “Racism”:
The constitutional concept of “states’ rights” pertains to the division of power between local and national authorities, and serves to protect the states from the Federal government; it does not grant to a state government an unlimited, arbitrary power over its citizens or the privilege of abrogating the citizens’ individual rights.
It does not matter whether Lincoln had any particular concern with slavery, it was his job as president to end it as a violation of individual rights.
It is popular among secessionists to argue that the Civil War was about states’ rights, but that is an obfuscation of the primary issue of slavery, which is what caused the southern states to secede in the first place. States have no right to run roughshod over the individual rights of their constituency and no matter how correct a state nor how wrong the federal government, there is nothing which guarantees a legal claim to secession.
On the question of a legal claim to secession, what would guarantee such a claim? A seceding state cannot say that the US Constitution protects them because they are renouncing the protection of the Constitution. They cannot say their own laws protect them because the US Government is not subject to the laws of other countries. Citizens may stage a revolution against their government, but no matter how righteous their cause, they are not guaranteed victory and no proper government can grant them the right to do so.
UPDATE 2/15/2010: Commentor Jim Woods has a lengthy (and entertaining) discussion of the particulars around the American Civil War.
I’m not sure that I’m satisfied with your argument, Trey. If you are saying that a state hasn’t the *unconditional* right to secede, then I agree. However, I think a description of the proper conditions under which secession is right is necessary. True, secession is a variety of rebellion, but it is important to recognize that no man may subject any other man to unjustified authority.
In this context, that means that merely because a group of men claim to govern a particular geographical region doesn’t make it so. The UN claims a lot of things, but they are corrupt and unjust. Nor may China simply declare Taiwan to be a subject state. However, if the US were to commit to bringing greater individual freedom to a region, such as Iraq or Afghanistan, it would be right to claim just governance of those regions.
Secession is simply a declaration that a geographical region that has formerly recognized the authority of a wider regional government will no longer submit to such authority. As you say, such a right does not exist. But again, I feel it necessary to add on the proviso of “per se”.
It was indeed wrong for the southern states to secede solely on the basis of continuing the institution of slavery. But, culturally speaking, slavery was on its way out. It had already fell out of favor in Europe and continued acceptance of slavery in the south might very well have subjected them to international censure/condemnation, not to mention increasing alienation within the American continental culture.
I’m not a scholar of this issue, even remotely, but I believe it is a shame that the Civil War had to play out the way it did. Although a great good, in the abolition of slavery as an institution, was done, the assertion of federal power over the states was a massive reversal of the ideas and intentions of the American founders, and was, arguably, an exceedingly high price to pay. In my, admittedly somewhat illiterate, opinion, Lincoln *was* a tyrant that struck a blow against our identity as a federated (i.e. divided powers and authority) republic (i.e. non-monarchy). It set the stage for the massive encroachment of federal power unilaterally asserted over individual states and the shrinking distinction between our representative governors and a real aristocracy.
Today, with so many injustices perpetrated upon us by the federal government, if a group of states were to keep a constitution protecting the rights of the individual against the power of the government, would you argue against their right to secede?
I didn’t add that qualifier because right or wrong, they have to defend their sovereignty.
Consider what would have happened if the colonists had lost the American revolution. The colonists couldn’t whine and say, “Oh, you can’t do that! We want a law that says we don’t have to follow your laws if we don’t want to!” That’s ridiculous.
The reason the American revolution succeeded isn’t because we were moral in our claims to revolution, but that we were also successful in defending that claim. It just happens that the southerners were neither moral nor successful.
Strictly speaking, states do not actually have “rights.” Individuals have rights and individuals are responsible for defending those rights. When individuals set up a government, they give up a portion of the responsibility of those rights in certain conditions to that government.
If you decide rightly or wrongly you do not want to let the government do that for you any more, you have to understand that you are breaking that government’s laws and they will use their police powers to stop you.
To the point about Lincoln: I am not an expert on him, either. As mentioned in my post, I’m not surprised that he argued in favor of some bad ideas. Fighting against slavery and secession, though, was not one of them.
To your point about our federal republic: the nature of our government is such that the federal government is highest above the states. Although the Constitution reserves the right to legislate things not governed by the federal government, secession and slavery are not among those powers, which is what I address in my post.
As for being a republic, that doesn’t mean merely non-monarchy. It means that the powers of the government are delimited by a Constitution in order to protect our rights from tyranny. So, it is not merely a non-monarchy, it’s also a non-democracy, non-oligarchy, non-dictatorship, etc.
Would I support secession in certain conditions? Not really. Secession is one government entity rebelling against the authority of a higher government entity. Why not advocate for a county to secede from a state? Or a city from a state/country? I wouldn’t advocate rebellion in that way because it’s a confusing mish-mash of individuals. If I’m going to rebel, I’m going to rebel for my own sake and invite others to join me for their own sakes. I wouldn’t want my state government to step in and say, “Yo, in favor of defending your rights as we see them, we’re going to rebel against the federal government.” That would bring hell down on my property and family and they don’t even know if *I* want that. So, I’d have to give up my property and run for the hills.
See also my brief comment in the post about it being akin to a gang deciding to claim a territory in a city as their own and rejecting the laws there.
I tried to take some care in my post not to refer to a “right” of secession, because I don’t believe such a right exists. Rebellion may be a method of one defending his rights, but I don’t believe secession is a proper mode of rebellion.
Trey, I think the fundamental issue here is that the concept of states rights is a floating abstraction without proper grounding to individual rights in the first place. One cannot claim objective valid “rights” to secede or rebel in order to continue a practice of violating individual rights within the country (i.e. slavery). This would be a stolen concept.
This highlights also my reluctance to call rebellion, whether the form of secession or otherwise, a right at all. There obviously isn’t any legal grounds for that action since it is inherently a defiance of the law. There may be a moral ground for rebellion, but not, I think, as a governmental subunit of a larger government structure.
Thanks for the exposure Trey
As to Rand’s statements, I believe she was wrong on this. She is correct that no government has the right to protect slavery, but isn’t it also true that no government has the right to steal from one group of people and give to another? That is what the US government was doing to the Southern states from 1830 up until the war. In fact, the reason South Carolina seceded was that they had nullified the Tariff acts and refused to collect them.
Obviously, slavery is wrong, was wrong, could never be considered right, but it is silly to say that the US government, who supported slavery and the slave trade at the time of the invasion of the south (and didn’t outlaw owning slaves until after the war) had the moral right to invade a sovereign nation.
The southern states were not sovereign nations, though. And, insofar as one might think of them that way, they were slave states, yes, the US government was moral in “invading” it even in spite of the existing but dwindling support for the slave trade. (Keep in mind the south started hostilities by attacking Fort Sumter, though.)
I do think the government is wrong to steal, but I do not believe that is grounds for rebellion. Further, I do not recognize rebellion as a legitimate power of the states. I think that claim is just absurd on its very face.
But Trey the States were indeed sovereign nations. The US Constitution created a federation of states. It was a voluntary pact between the states. Just look at the ratification process, there were a couple of states who were on their own around 1788-89 until they finally decided to join the Union. The myth of the perpetual and all powerful union was created by Lincoln and the big government Republicans of the day.
In fact, I forget which state it was, but one of the Northern states Nullified the fugitive slave laws and threatened to secede if the federal government were to interfere. They were justified in doing so and so were the Southern States.
Besides, isn’t it PAINFULLY obvious that the plight of black people wasn’t a concern, at all, for the US government? Didn’t the examples I listed show you how poorly they were treated during and after the war? Doesn’t the fact that it took 100 more years for them to get any semblance of rights prove the point that their freedom was of no concern to the Union?
Lincoln used slavery to keep Britain and France out of the war (otherwise they had good reason to fight for the South – cheap imports) and to create catastrophy within the South itself (which didn’t happen.) That was it. Saying the USA fought the war against Southern Independence for the purpose of freeing the slaves is like saying the Continental Army fought the revolutionary war for the purpose of getting cheaper tea. Both are issues that had effects on the war and more importantly on the public relations, but neither was actually the central issue.
I do not agree that the so-called “myth” of a federal government was created by Lincoln. Federalism was a point argued long before even the ratification of the Constitution. I also believe that, whether they understood it or not, the states gave up their individual sovereignty when they ratified the constitution. It was explicitly NOT another manifestation of the articles of confederation. And it isn’t logically possible to write a law or constitution where compliance is optional.
The point is simple: when the states joined the union, they were no longer sovereign states. And, in spite of their declarations of secession to the contrary, they failed to legally and militarily defend that claim.
Treatment of slaves and black freemen in the US is not relevant to this argument. You can continue to bring the point up as much as you’d like, but it will never serve as sufficient evidence to support the rebellion of the southern states. That some particular northern state threatened to do the same and the rest of the US government capitulated is also not relevant.
The simple point remains: it is not possible to guarantee peaceful rebellion among the constituents of a particular government. Logic prohibits you from passing a law that says, “People are allowed to break laws if they disagree with them,” because the result would be anarchy. Even if you set up some sort of complicated system of representatives to achieve the same end, it would be equally illegitimate. Secession is simply rebellion and rebellion is illegal. (I’d also argue that it’s not a valid form of rebellion, but that’s a separate line of discussion.)
Slavery was the central issue behind southern secession from the United States. The evidence for this is overwhelming and your assertions to the contrary are not persuasive in that matter. Also, it needs to be pointed out that South Carolina did not list the repeal of tariffs among its reasons for secession. But it did list concerns related to the abolition of slavery. In calling the American Civil War the “War against Southern Independence,” you might as well also refer to it as the “War of Northern Aggression.” Both names are in denial of the facts and neither properly address the essential issues behind the war.
Your comparison between the Civil War and the American War of Independence is also not a valid because although among the American complaints was taxation (on tea and other things. The Stamp Act, I believe really pushed a lot of folks over the edge) without representation a number of other issues were also listed. Please see the American Declaration of Independence for a complete list of the primary complaints against the British government. Further, the southern complaint that Congress and the presidency would limit the expansion of slavery was NOT a valid complaint that the federal government was violating states rights because the states do not have a right to slavery. It should also be noted that the Americans successfully defended their claim to independence against the British government while the confederacy of southern states did not successfully defend itself against the US claim to sovereignty.
In Texas v. White, the Supreme Court held essentially in part that unilateral secession is unconstitutional; however, a process of secession securing the consent of the several states could be constitutional.
Thus, the Libertarian argument about secession related to the Southern states is rendered doubly moot (beyond their military defeat) as they failed to follow a constitutional legal process to secure their secession.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html
I’m not completely persuaded by this. Because it seems
reallyreally stupidcontradictory that any government would attempt to pass a law or constitution which allows of its own overthrow even in the event that some group follows a particular bureaucratic process.Example of voluntary separation: Czechoslovakia in 1993.
Quebec and Canada would also likely be a peaceful separation if it were to occur.
Syria and Egypt were joined as the United Arab Republic in 1958, but Syria seceded in 1961 without a war against Egypt.
USSR was broken up without significant separatist violence.
There may be some other examples, but that is what I have off the top of my head. Such disputes are frequently resolved by authorizations of regional autonomy.
Wait…I would add that some of the decolonization during the 20th century was separation without violence.
Another potential example, Puerto Rico could separate from the US through a legislatively approved process.
Those are good examples. Even though that’s not getting to what I’m talking about, clearly a government can relinquish control of a territory and grant autonomy in a peaceful manner. In all the examples it seems to be a requirement that the superseding power, the federal power also agrees to it. Unilateral secession, however, still seems beyond the reach of any legal arrangement. Even when a colonial power declines to defend its claim to a colony in the event of a declaration of independence, the declaration itself is still an act of rebellion which they have to be prepared to back with military action.
But my point here is not that peaceful separations do not and have not occurred. My point is that a government cannot give legal protection to rebellion. You can’t pass a law that says, “Everyone must follow this law. Or not, you know, if you don’t want to. That would be OK, too.” That is effectively non-governance.
Taking your previous comment into further consideration, I suppose a people could design some system into their government whereby a territory could apply for independence and the federal power could agree that, given certain conditions, it will let it happen. So, I’ll grant that.
Based upon your summary, I think that we are in agreement.