Secession, Revolution, and Elections
If anyone is interested in following up on the provocative conversations on revolution and secession, I highly recommend Harry V. Jaffa's A New Birth of Freedom.
Jaffa offers a profound discussion of the nature of elections through a comparison of the elections of 1800 and 1860. The election of 1800 is very pertinent to our discussion today. A nation deeply divided by a bitter partisan conflict resolved that conflict through ballots rather than bullets. We tend to forget just how nasty the party disputes of the 1790's were. They were ugly even by today's standards. It is enough to recall the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions to see how divided the country was at that time.
Jefferson's First Inaugural Address and Lincoln's First Inaugural and his Special Message to Congress of July 4th 1861 are classic texts elucidating the logic of elections. Jefferson and Lincoln both believed in the right to revolution, but they understood that it should only be exercised as a desperate last resort.
We should learn from the Founders and Lincoln that there is no such thing as secession. There cannot be a legal right for a state to secede from the Union. There is an extra-legal right to revolution when government rules despotically and there is no other remedy. For instance, Americans were denied the right to representation in the English Parliament. When the King and Parliament refused to heed their numerous pleas for the recognition of their rights, they had no alternative but a recourse to arms. Southerners were not denied this right in 1860. They simply refused to abide by the results of the election, even though Lincoln's victory did not threaten their rights in the least.
The normal democratic process is the appropriate way to resolve disputes in a free society. This means submission to majority rule when it is accompanied by respect for the rights of the electoral minority.
There is a great deal to learn from the study of the 1790's and the 1850's. (I would also recommend Jaffa's first book on Lincoln, Crisis of the House Divided, for a thorough and thoughtful examination of the issues, domestic and foreign, at play in the late 1850's in American politics.) We would do well to study how Lincoln changed the public mind in the late 1850's. The Republic Party of that day was not unified either. It would be very useful for Republican presidential candidates to see how Lincoln unified the GOP on the basis of a return to our fundamental principles.
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
Excellent point, thank you. I think one of our members has actually studied within distance of Dr. Jaffa.
Apr '11
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
I second both recommendations. The history and philosophy in both is fascinating, to use literally an overused and never literal word. It was sometimes heavy going, but my practice of reading in bits and snatches at meals and before bed requires a lot of backtracking to follow a logical or narrative thread. When I had a relaxed few hours, I just floated along.
May '10
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
For what it's worth in the debate, the question of secession was settled by force of arms, not law. They cut Jefferson Davis loose because the Federal authorities did not want him to go to court, where they could not be certain of the outcome.
May '10
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
It seems to me that people can perceive natural obligations that run completely contrary to the temporal laws of the society in which they live. Revolution is intrinsically extra-legal, and people can be guided by conscience in illegally (a) hiding Jews during WWII; (b) refusing to pay taxes that support immoral policies; (c) evading the draft; (d) torturing a terrorist in a ticking time bomb scenario, et cetera.
What puzzles me is why people would seek absolution from the state that they're defying. In bowing to a higher authority or their own sense of right and wrong, they're thumbing their nose at their government (and, in many cases, their fellow citizens' sensibilities), and should expect to pay the consequences if apprehended.
Doing the right thing can come with a price.
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
John I've seen others drawing the distinction between revolution and secession, but I don't understand the preference for the former.
In secession, I simply bid the master adieu.
In revolution, I kick his rear end before I bid him adieu, and in some cases conquor him and take his stuff.
Shouldn't secession be favored?
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
Secession is incompatible with the social compact theory of government derived from John Locke and embodied in the Declaration of Independence. There cannot be a legal right to not abide by the law.
The argument for secession arose in the context of a denial of the principles of the Founding. The CSA, having embraced the idea that slavery is a positive good, rejected the principles underlying the Constitution of 1787. Individual natural rights were replaced with the new understanding of states' rights.
Jefferson Davis and John C. Calhoun were forerunners of the later Progressives.
May '10
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
We learned from Lincoln via the Civil War that the federal government won't necessarily tolerate a secession. We learned from the Founders via the Declaration of Independence that they believed in secession under certain conditions, as the American Revolution was nothing less than a secession. I would not grant the legality of secession too much credit. If conditions were so hostile so as to make secession necessary, then I doubt that the constitutionality of secession would trouble the secessionists much, and rightly so. If the states were to suffer intolerable repression at the hands of Washington, then who should care about the lawfulness of secession?
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
Hey Tommy,
But as Claire pointed out in the quote from Lincoln, the secession argument is a recipe for anarchy. All political obligations would be free-love arrangements.
In other words, we would never be out of the state of nature, because there would be no effectual political rule.
Tommy De Seno: John I've seen others drawing the distinction between revolution and secession, but I don't understand the preference for the former.
In secession, I simply bid the master adieu.
In revolution, I kick his rear end before I bid him adieu, and in some cases conquor him and take his stuff.
Shouldn't secession be favored? · Jul 8 at 6:13pm
Jul '10
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
John Grant: There cannot be a legal right to not abide by the law.
There cannot be a legal right for Our federal government to not abide by Our Constitution.
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
I think you are describing revolution. Secession is the claim to a legal right to opt out of the Constitution.
The Founders were very clear about the right to revolution; they did not claim to be seceding from Great Britain as a matter of legal right. States do not possess the right to rebel, individuals do. States only have the rights delegated to them by individuals comprising the social compact (just like the national government).
The states are historically at least as likely to abuse individual rights as the national government.
Michael Labeit
We learned from Lincoln via the Civil War that the federal government won't necessarily tolerate a secession. We learned from the Founders via the Declaration of Independence that they believed in secession under certain conditions, as the American Revolution was nothing less than a secession. IIf conditions were so hostile so as to make secession necessary, then I doubt that the constitutionality of secession would trouble the secessionists much, and rightly so. If the states were to suffer intolerable repression at the hands of Washington, then who should care about the lawfulness of secession? · Jul 8 at 6:31pm
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
Amen! The first remedy is elections. I think that 2010 was very hopeful in this regard. Now we need to carry through on what was begun then.
Jimmy Carter
John Grant: There cannot be a legal right to not abide by the law.
There cannot be a legal right for Our federal government to not abide by Our Constitution. · Jul 8 at 6:36pm
Mar '11
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
Well that's a strange argument. Secession is simply a portion of the population and/or an area of an existing country telling their government "We have irreconcilable differences, and we're leaving you. Bye". You're not opting out of a constitution at that point. "Opting Out" would be "OK, we're staying a part of the country, but we'll decide what laws to follow". What you're saying is analogous to claiming that an ex-wife isn't performing her marital duties, when by very defintion of divorce, she has none anymore. She's no longer tied to you. She divorced and left and now leads a seperate life.
And for the "the Constitution is an un-breakable compact" folks, does it bind future generations as well? THEY didn't sign onto the compact. This is one of the reasons Jefferson thought the Constitution should be reviewed and revised by every new generation, so that generation could plot its own destiny and not be bound by the dictates of past generations. An idea to ponder.
Jul '10
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
Considering Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and others viewed secession as a distinct possibility, it's impossible to claim the Founders found it unconstitutional. They may have found it distasteful and something to be avoided, but they never said it went beyond the rights of the States. Jefferson, in fact, explicitly said states had the right to do it.
May '10
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
John Grant: I think you are describing revolution. Secession is the claim to a legal right to opt out of the Constitution.
The Founders were very clear about the right to revolution; they did not claim to be seceding from Great Britain as a matter of legal right. States do not possess the right to rebel, individuals do. States only have the rights delegated to them by individuals comprising the social compact (just like the national government).
The states are historically at least as likely to abuse individual rights as the national government.
According to Wikipedia, secession "is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity." This sounds like what occurred in 1776.
Mar '11
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
John,
Great recommendation. May I add Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided?
Mar '11
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
Nevermind, you did in your last paragraph.
Mar '11
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
With regard to the conflation of secession and revolution, I think you’ve asked a valuable question.
The response that doesn’t require a course in 19th century American political thought is that the context an act takes place in helps determine its meaning.
We make distinctions between manslaughter, killing, and murder. In each case one person is at fault for the death of another, but the degrees and variations matter.
Here, the victim is the political bonds with another people, but it very much matters what the condition of their severance was and what principles were being defended in advance of the severing.
May '10
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
Revolution is better than succession?
The idea that revolution is a right was most often stated by Jefferson, but he drew on a principle of enlightened self-interest (from Locke). It's unclear whether Lincoln would have agreed entirely since he started from a different axiom--one that emphasized civic duty in protecting natural rights. I suppose you could get to revolution from there as well, but it's at least important that we don't conflate the two views. Jefferson and Lincoln would defend revolution for different reasons (Jaffa actually says this in Crisis).
Of course, there is another school of thought that I find more satisfying. Going back to the anglo-Christian tradition and looking at the writings of evil monarchists like Rutherford (gasp), there is an interesting argument to consider. Revolution, if legitimate, must be carried out by a 'lesser magistrate.' In this scheme, secession is a revolution of sorts, just a more valid one. The Revolutionary War meets these qualifications as well.
This is more satisfying to me because it avoids the Rousseauian obsession with either the large State or the lone individual. Have we forgotten the place of other institutions between the two?
Edited on Jul 9, 2011 at 7:27amMay '10
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
I should add, when I say sucession is a revolution of sorts, I mean the milder definition of revolution--a general revolt against the central governing authority. I'm not referring here to a full-orbed overturning of cultural and religious norms, which is more faithful to the literal definition of the word.
Re: Secession, Revolution, and Elections
Divorce is a legal process conducted according to civil law with an impartial judge. Secession involves one or some of the parties to a contract unilaterally reneging on the contract.
We consent to the social compact by staying here. I agree that explicit consent (for instance taking an oath of allegiance at 18) would be optimal. But we have a natural right to emigrate if we want out.
Douglas
Well that's a strange argument. Secession is simply a portion of the population and/or an area of an existing country telling their government "We have irreconcilable differences, and we're leaving you. Bye". You're not opting out of a constitution at that point. "Opting Out" would be "OK, we're staying a part of the country, but we'll decide what laws to follow". What you're saying is analogous to claiming that an ex-wife isn't performing her marital duties, when by very defintion of divorce, she has none anymore.
And for the "the Constitution is an un-breakable compact" folks, does it bind future generations as well? THEY didn't sign onto the compact. · Jul 8 at 6:53pm