Dr. Tom Woods has stepped up to refute the ignorant elites who believe that idea of secession was ended by the Civil War. Talk of such an act is currently rising as the problem in Texas reflects on the Federal Government tone deafness.
All this talk about Texas and defying the federal government has revived healthy discussion of forbidden ideas like state nullification and even secession — both of which are excellent, morally praiseworthy, and fully constitutional, even if mainstream opinion molders have done their best to render them toxic and unthinkable.
These ideas are central to American history and the nature of the American Union, even if demonized by progressives.
Unfortunately, some of this demonization of the American tradition has trickled even into conservative and libertarian circles.
Over the weekend I watched an 18-minute video by a lawyer on why states (including Texas) can’t secede from the Union. People assure me that this lawyer is normally very sound.
A lawyer is the very last person you should consult on issues like this. He knows zero about the state ratification conventions, or the relevant history. He has studied a bunch of court cases, some of which were wrongly decided. This is the foundation of his knowledge.
This particular fellow, for instance, thinks for some reason you can’t dissolve a founding document. Oh, but you can, sir. That’s how the Articles of Confederation were abandoned.
As I explained on Friday, the United States was created by the sovereign peoples of independent states, and was never at any time a single, undifferentiated blob. I also noted that according to 18th-century international law, a sovereign body joining a confederation becomes no less sovereign. It does not alienate its sovereignty by so doing.
So if a sovereign people join a confederation, that same people can withdraw from it — in both cases they are exercising the very same sovereignty.
This is an extremely important point to remember. Each state has its own sovereignty. Each state has its own laws. And it is not just items like speed limits that are different. Some states favor very rigid and likely unconstitutional laws governing gun ownership. Others do not. Some states permit the killing of unborn children. Others do not. And the list goes on and on.
All the relevant documents (including the Constitution itself) speak of the United States in the plural. It was self-consciously not a centralized regime in the way the French Revolutionary state would be. The United States is rather a collection of sovereign peoples.
I can cite tons of authorities — Thomas Jefferson, or Alexis de Tocqueville, or John Quincy Adams, or the textbook used at West Point in the 19th century, to name only a few — in favor of what I am saying here.
Seek out the authors they’ve suppressed. That’s always a good rule. Read St. George Tucker or (especially) Abel Upshur and his Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of Our Federal Government. You will realize instantly why nobody ever told you about that book.
I’ve spoken at length on this subject, and I’ve addressed all the arguments of the “unbreakable Union” people. What a shame to see even conservatives and libertarians who don’t understand the nature of their own country, and who simply repeat the regime’s talking points.
President Lincoln propagated the myth of the “unbreakable union.” The Civil War was about power and money just as all civil wars are. Slavery was part of the equation but was not the only consideration.
The 20th century was a lesson in why large, centralized states are to be feared, not welcomed. The United States was supposed to be a counterexample to that.
Remember all those “American exceptionalism” people? Why do they then turn around and portray their country as being exactly like France, Spain, and all the other centralized regimes out there? Isn’t the United States supposed to be, you know, different?
Now you may tell me that state secession won’t solve our problems, that it’s an unwise course of action, that now isn’t the time for it, etc. Those are all strategic questions, and people of good will may disagree on them.
What I don’t consider debatable is that the states have the right to do so. The testimony of the U.S. constitutional tradition as well as U.S. history at large will allow no other answer.