I’m having an argument with someone over the idea of state sovereignty and secession. In our discussion, I made the statement that the states were sovereign and independent states prior to creating and ratifying the constitution. My evidence was the treaty of paris and the articles of confederation, both of which state that this is the case.
My opponent makes the claim that the states declared independence jointly not individually. His point is that none of the states ever existed separately and not as part of a united states, either under a continental congress, articles of confederation, or constitution.
Also, he points out that the articles declare the union to be perpetual. He also points to article VI of the constitution: “All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.” His claim is that the Articles of Confederation were an engagement, and are thus, per this section of the constitution, valid except for those parts that were changed by the constitution. He then argues that since the articles say that the union is perpetual, and this was never explicitly overridden by the constitution, then since this was an engagement entered into before the constitution, it still applies.
His logic is fairly dubious, as far as I’m concerned. I’ve always just assumed that everyone knew the states were independent, sovereign countries prior to forming their compact.
Can anyone recommend any better way to argue this case, or point me to any resources that might bolster my position that the states were independent, sovereign countries prior to forming their union?
Lincoln had a similar approach to defining the union, as though it somehow existed before the states. If you read Lincoln’s Marxists, there is a whole section on State Sovereignty that is great.
Al Benson, Jr. and Walter Donald Kennedy state that the mistake by Lincoln and other big government people is that they believe:
I. Perpetuity is a vital element of government
II. Secession creates a less perfect union
III. Secession is unlawful (p. 78-94).
While the Articles had a formal title of The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the Articles was not ratified until 1781, which was years after the colonies declared independence by issuing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, thereby becoming states. The states preceded the union regardless of being under the union of the Articles and our current constitution, if there’s even a difference (e.g., ". . . a more perfect union. . . .).
You can inform your friend that the states were, indeed, sovereign and voluntarily joined the union they created; the union did not precede the states, like Lincoln, Hitler and other big government people professed.
Actually, 9 States seceded from the Articles of Confederation so by his reasoning the Federal Constitution is illegal. In other words ask him… “why was it okay for them to leave the Articles of Confederation?”.
I see what you mean and I agree . . . well, unless you consider Lincoln’s successful subsequent war as a response to secession the ability to enforce the agreement of perpetual union. The southern states are still “in it,” contractually anyway.
This is one of the productive things that came out of your and my (rankorous) discussions on my proposed new individualist political state; that you made me challenge the assumption of perpetual union, and I considered your (overly argumentative) points and come to include secession as a fundamental right of the individual–secession from any power at any time while remaining within your rights. If political power comes from the consent of the individual, then it should die when consent is withdrawn, at least over that individual whom withdraws it.
Up to and including leaving the society at large itself.
Lincoln’s real goal was to free the slaves. The union was his cover story. In any case, the South was aggressing against its people by holding many of them as slaves, and could ethically be invaded for that. But, after Lincoln had freed the slaves throughout, you could make a case that the South then should’ve been able to secede at will, and I would agree. Of course, had they then made slavery legal, they could be again invadeable
What are you talking about? Lincoln didn’t mention ending slavery until a couple years after secession, and before that - for his entire life and as president - he explicitly defended slavery. The main point to take from this, regardless of whether Lincoln was telling the truth or not, is that slavery was not the major cause of the secession of the southern states. At the same time, the major platform of Lincoln’s campaign - both for the presidency and for his entire political life - was the imposition of high tariffs on the South. What was a differentiating feature of the Confederacy? That it was a free trade zone.
Many (most? all?) commentators contemporary with the outbreak of the secession - both American and foreign - knew that the mercantilistic policies of Lincoln were the cause of the secession. Opposition to Lincoln, of course, was shut down, and dissenters were imprisoned (Lincoln had illegally suspended habeas corpus of course!) - only the propagandists who later in the war adopted the official rhetoric of ending slavery were allowed to publish. Ending slavery was simply a political move to a) get the foreign powers, in particular UK and France, who supported the Confederacy and opposed slavery, on the Union side, b) attempt to forment some kind of slave insurrection against the southern government. Note that the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in territories outside of the Union’s control**.** Why? Because the Union only wanted to proclaim the freedom of slaves as a desperate political move against the South.
Wayyy off, my friend. Lincoln waged war against the states due to their secession. Not only that, he didn’t end slavery; the 13th Amendment did, which was ratified after his death.
How about this humdinger of a quote to start what is suspected to be a major (though unintentional) thread hijack. . . .
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” -Abraham Lincoln
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, “Letter to Horace Greeley” (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
Look, I know that’s the common wisdom on Lincoln these days, but hear me out.
You have to read Lincoln in context. He was strongly against slavery. The entire Republican party had been recently founded on an anti-slavery platform, and Lincoln was its first president. All the other presidential contenders he’d beaten out similarly railed against slavery.
Since the 1960s, it has been fashionable in some quarters to take cheap shots at Lincoln, asking such questions as “Why didn’t he free all the slaves?” “Why did he wait so long?” “How come the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t just come right out and say that slavery was wrong?”
People who indulge themselves in this kind of self-righteous carping act as if Lincoln was someone who could do whatever he damn well pleased, without regard to the law, the Congress, or the Supreme Court. They might as well criticize him for not discovering a cure for cancer.
Fortunately, there is an excellent new book, titled “Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation” by Professor Allen C. Guelzo of Gettysburg College, that sets Lincoln in the context of the world in which he lived. Once you understand the constraints of that world, and how little room for maneuver Lincoln had, you realize what courage and brilliance it took for him to free the slaves.
"According to legend, Abraham Lincoln greeted Harriet Beecher Stowe in 1862 by saying “So you’re the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war.”
Are we so sure today that slavery had nothing to do with it? As for the Emancipation Proclamation, read that first article I linked which shows why Lincoln did with it what he did. It was sly, and clever. Lincoln bamboozled his political opponents who wanted to keep slavery with his ‘save the union’ speeches, while constantly scheming to end slavery with his presidency, and in the end he’s the one who made it possible.
Yeah, I put that quote of his on about the same level as Clinton’s "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
Lincoln lied because he couldn’t come right out and say what his real aim was. The union was a cover story. He did of course want to keep the union together, no doubt, but that was the means to ending slavery.
His response to this is that this is not saying that the individual states are free and independend. He claims that they were referring to the collective entity of “The United States”, and that this collectivie entity is free and indenpendent of Britain. He continues to insist that they were not 13 free and independnent nations unto themselves.
He also points out that in the declaration they use the term “These united colonies…” and “united states of america”, so this proves that they were acting as a union even as they declared their independence.
However, as someone has already pointed out, they did not sign the articles of confederation until several years after the declaration.
Meh. The only reason the opposition to chattel slavery fit into the Republican party platform was because the greatest opponents of high tariffs - the cornerstone of the Republican mercantilism - were the Southerners, and many of the most prominent citizens of the South were slave-holders. Their cronies wanted to secure control of the West, and they would have much greater difficulty doing this if the slave-owners expanded their business into the new territories. Lincoln and co. were never opposed to slavery in general (e.g. the relation of the subject to the state), even if somehow they desired the abolition of chattel slavery but didn’t say it for political reasons (which isn’t necessarily the case).
Also, it seems that Sowell forgets that Lincoln pretty much did whatever he pleased regardless of the law, including suspending habeas corpus and arbitrarily imprisoning of over 10,000 Americans, shutting down newspapers, illegally calling up the militia, imposing an income tax, and ordering destruction of civilian property and devastation of civilian life and land. Ironically the guaranteed freedom of slaves arriving in Great Britain was based on habeas corpus!
The only thing left is for you to understand that “leaving the society” does not require one to abandon his own property - at which point your idea of an “individualist political state” falls apart.
By the way, I still need to make my first “Contra Anemonem” thread. I hope to do so soon.
What evidence do you have to support this assertion?
Sure, it could be ethically invaded to free the slaves, but that’s not what happened. What you’re talking about is basically what John Brown wanted to do, and the federal (i.e. Union) government allowed him to be executed by the state of Virginia.
As it turns out, the issue of slavery at the time was a (significant) factor in the larger issue of states’ rights.
Lincoln had plenty of opportunities to end slavery through amendment before he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation (which if you read it in its entirety, you realize he doesn’t end slavery in the U.S. at all). This might help to add a bit of context:
Lincoln refused to end slavery during 1861 and the first half of 1862 for several reasons. First, he believed that the United States Constitution prevented the president from seizing the property – slaves – of the country’s citizens without due process. Second, Lincoln feared alienating the residents of the Border States – slave states that had remained in the Union. These people included residents of Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland. If these people joined with the South, hundreds of thousands of more men could join the Confederate armies. Lincoln wanted to solidify the North’s control over these slaveholding states before acting against slavery. Third, Lincoln realized that many Southerners and Northerners would not support slavery’s termination, because it might result in the equality of African Americans with white people. Lincoln hoped to persuade prominent African-American leaders that the black population should move from the United States if slavery ended. The president also had to negotiate with other nations, to convince these countries to accept African-American immigrants. Finally, Lincoln worried that ending slavery would alienate any Unionist sympathizers currently in the South, further strengthening the Confederate war effort.
“While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
“Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.”
While Lincoln did not have slaves, he was not an abolitionist.
John Brown, from what I’ve read, was anything but peaceful. He killed many people, including slave owners, non-slave owners and blacks. While perhaps his intentions were benevolent from the start, he was a sick individual.
Even under the Articles, the states were completely sovereign. There was no overarching federal (central or national) government other than the one that met once a year to discuss different things the states were doing. That’s where the president came in: the presidents were nominated each year to run the congress, which was little more than discussing the ins and outs of foreign policy and so forth, each state sending a representative or two to connect with their neighbors. The very lack of a federal government is the entire reason Alexander Hamilton came up with the brilliant idea to have national taxation, a national bank, etc. There was no control over the states, which was great if you ask me.
The idea of the confederation was to have independent, sovereign states bonded only in friendship (for voluntary transactions with neighboring states) and in time of war. We acted as one unit, for the most part, against the British. There was the militia, then there were private citizens with arms. These combined, we kicked the British asses back across the pond.
Your friend should read up on the dates these documents were created. An implied union is not the same as a contractual union, and even then secession is allowed due to the 10th Amendment. Secession is not mentioned in the current U.S. Constitution, and according to the 10th Amendment . . .
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.
