Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
Tommy, let's go back to the basic conservative argument against secession.
Soveraigne Power Not Hurtfull As The Want Of It, And The Hurt Proceeds For The Greatest Part From Not Submitting Readily, To A Lesse But a man may here object, that the Condition of Subjects is very miserable; as being obnoxious to the lusts, and other irregular passions of him, or them that have so unlimited a Power in their hands. And commonly they that live under a Monarch, think it the fault of Monarchy; and they that live under the government of Democracy, or other Soveraign Assembly, attribute all the inconvenience to that forme of Common-wealth; whereas the Power in all formes, if they be perfect enough to protect them, is the same; not considering that the estate of Man can never be without some incommodity or other; and that the greatest, that in any forme of Government can possibly happen to the people in generall, is scarce sensible, in respect of the miseries, and horrible calamities, that accompany a Civill Warre; or that dissolute condition of masterlesse men, without subjection to Lawes, and a coercive Power to tye their hands from rapine, and revenge: nor considering that the greatest pressure of Soveraign Governours, proceedeth not from any delight, or profit they can expect in the dammage, or weakening of their subjects, in whose vigor, consisteth their own selves, that unwillingly contributing to their own defence, make it necessary for their Governours to draw from them what they can in time of Peace, that they may have means on any emergent occasion, or sudden need, to resist, or take advantage on their Enemies. For all men are by nature provided of notable multiplying glasses, (that is their Passions and Self-love,) through which, every little payment appeareth a great grievance; but are destitute of those prospective glasses, (namely Morall and Civill Science,) to see a farre off the miseries that hang over them, and cannot without such payments be avoyded.
And:
Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
These are non-trivial arguments.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
After George W. Bush's re-election in 2004, Bob Beckel lamented on Fox News that secession might be an appropriate response. I thought then that his was the despicable tirade of a sore loser. I still do and struggle every day to reconcile that with an increasing sense that he may have been right.
My concern has to do with the differing philosophies of a population that could elect first W and then O. I don't need to defend President Bush. He was a fine man but a less than ideal head of state. President Obama is, in my estimation, a petty and thoroughly unlikeable man whose election symbolizes the shallowness of celebrity culture. Thus I am trending toward regretful conclusion that, just as San Franciscans demand we flyover yahoos let them be, I'd prefer that their lunacy not be imposed on my preferred existence. If the federal government cannot or will not respect the sovereignty of the states, then political dissolution may be the only way to make both sides happy. For a while.
Mar '11
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
Hobbes and Lincoln on the second cup of coffee. Thanks, Claire! My brain is officially started for the day!
The whole point of the ongoing American Experiment is whether or not we can set up a system of government that keeps the majority from trampling the rights of everyone else. The Constitution wasn't, isn't, and won't ever be perfect -- no system has been, is, or can ever be. (I got that last part from Kurt Gödel and 30 years of engineering experience.) But it is better than anything I've ever heard of that has been proposed.
Right now, in my opinion, the Constitution isn't being followed very well, but we can fix that with a change of personnel. It isn't yet time to give up on it.
But if we can't? If they ignore James Madison, they're gonna get a whole lotta Patrick Henry.
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
Claire the second statement does not suffer from being trivial - it suffers from short-sightedness.It has more respect for Athenian Democracy than a Constitutional Republic.Majority rule is wonderful when you're in the noble majority.What though when illegal immigration and amnesty teams with liberal education and we end up with a majority that has no respect for naturally endowed freedoms and Mollie Hemingway's social norms (mentioned with reverence toward her forceful and compelling arguments about them)?What if their force is so great the Constitution no longer restrains them as stated in your cite?Democracy is great, but if two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for lunch, Democracy will fail the sheep. The Constition is there to make sure that some votes the wolves don't get to take.The problem with Constitutional amendments is that the wolves get to amend the Constitution when they have the majority, which is why preserving American culture is as important as preserving her Armies and resources. We have to guard against raisng wolves, and granting foreign wolves rights and amnesty.Pretending America and her governing system can withstand all is dangerous. Rebellion is sometimes warranted.
Edited on Jul 8, 2011 at 6:01amRe: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
Tommy's question--one worth thinking about seriously--was "where is your personal breaking point?" Any genuinely conservative response must take into account the overwhelming historical evidence that the American Revolution was one of the only revolutions in history that didn't devolve into horror, tyranny or anarchy. Anarchy is hell. So my personal breaking point--and I hope that of the vast, vast majority of Americans--is nowhere in sight. An imperfect system with fairly plausible, historically-tested mechanisms for self-correction is pretty much guaranteed to work better than taking a hammer to a thing and smashing it.
Mar '11
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
How fateful that in the same week that some critics suggested that the Right contained elements that were know-nothing, wildly irrational and extreme, that we should take up the subject of violent revolution from the Obama government.
Gosh, its a really good thing we're not handing anyone any ammunition.....
Dec '10
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
Think about the heated arguments that you often have with your friends, co-workers, family. Now elevate those debates to the point of violence.
At the meanest level, that's what succession and revolution entails: violence against your fellow citizens. These citizens are our friends, co-workers and family.
Presently, the threshold for armed revolution or succession is too high a climb for me to contemplate.
Nov '10
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
I'll quote myself from just last week: More Locke, less Hobbes.
The Lockean state of nature... really isn't that bad. Anarchy needn't be a "war of all against all," at least not when rational men are acting. And in any case it's often preferable to tyranny.
Mar '11
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
Jan-Michael,
I gently suggest that you may have misread Locke.
Examine closely the argument contained in the Second Treatise, Chapter II, Section 13. The words may not say "the war of all against all", but what does the doctrine that every man in the state of nature possesses the 'executive power' actually mean? Who are these men who have the liberty to be judges and command magnitudes...and who if they judge poorly will be held in line by the rest of mankind?
Look at Section 11 where he says that "every man in the state of nature has a power to kill or murder, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate....and also to secure men from the attempts of the criminal....who may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger...."
If the consequence of the absence of law is a state in which men fight for survival and issue judgment through force....it rather seems Locke and Hobbes have more in common then you suppose.
May '10
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
Sometimes, my dear Claire, when you look at America you forget to take off your Turkish-colored glasses. Seeing what you do on a daily basis makes you want to scream at the countrymen you've left behind, "Don't you know how good you have it?!"
Obama is no Lincoln. Should a state such as Texas attempt secession I doubt that he would have the guts to call on the Army to shoot. And even if he did I'm not sure the troops would obey.
But I wouldn't worry. Our souls have already been sold to the devil. All Obama would have to do is point out that the welfare and the Social Security checks stop on the day of secession and such a movement would fold like a cheap lawn chair.
Dec '10
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
EJHill:
Obama is no Lincoln. Should a state such as Texas attempt secession I doubt that he would have the guts to call on the Army to shoot. And even if he did I'm not sure the troops would obey.
When the Civil War started, what happened to the United State's armed forces? Did they divide their allegiance along the Mason-Dixon line? Was there even a standing army at the time, or were the militias still beholden to the states?
Forgive my lack of historical knowledge.
Edited on Jul 8, 2011 at 9:53amMar '11
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
Hi Michael,
No worries. You are not alone in America with regard to lack of/hunger for historical knowledge, and I blame our education system for failing you (but, do go to a bookstore and buy a copy of something by Shelby Foote, James McPherson, or Bruce Catton at some point. It is interesting, I promise).
The simplest answer to your question is that the United States did have a standing military at the time, and that it was divided by the conflict. The Mason-Dixon line was not necessarily determinative: there were Southerns who rejected slavery and Northerns who rejected the Federal government's approach to state's rights. However, it was largely determinative because many people felt compelled to fight for their home states, wherever they fell in the conflict. Such is the tragedy of war.
Many of the officers of both the Army of Northern Virginia (Confederate) and the Army of the Potomac (Union) had been classmates at West Point, and many had served alongside one another in previous conflicts. Such is the horror of killing your brothers.
Jan '11
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
Any room in this discussion for revolution? That is a distinction with a difference.
May '10
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
As I remarked to Steyn a couple weeks ago, "it is increasingly evident that politicians and officers of countless amoeba-like agencies can enact any violation on citizens so long as they do it to only a few citizens at a time."
We live in a society in which one citizen is relatively free to prosper (because the state's resources are limited?) while another citizen is deprived of his or her most basic natural rights and treated with malice by our government.
Ask the mother who was convicted of a felony and robbed of her baby girl over a mild spanking if she is free. Ask the people who are forced at gunpoint to tear down their own homes in California if they are free. Ask the ATF officer killed by a gun purchased with the aid of his own government. These stories have come to light just in the past week.
In a land of 300+ million people, such stories indeed seem exceptional. To the victims, however, that's small consolation. Their oppressors continue enjoy the title of "public servant."
Dec '10
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
I have to agree with Aaron on this. I can think of no thing I do that is not in some way "by your leave" of the government. When government officials believe they have some authority to censor our prayers (a judge ruled against this woman already), what is left? It really is only a matter of time before they drop the facade and let us know that we are subjects, not citizens. Obamacare gets very, very close to that point.
Nov '10
Re: Secession, Hobbes and the American Civil War
A year or so ago, I was at a professional meeting and went out to dinner with a bunch of northeasterners I know--all Democrats. They were going on and on about how badly they wished that the entire "flyover" territory would just secede and go away. So this feeling of disgust--in fact, that we really don't belong together any more--is definitely felt on both sides.
I personally sat there, consoling myself for having to listen to this, by imagining the nonviability of a country made up of Washington, DC, and the Northeast corridor.