Sovereignty, by a fundamental principle of our system, resides in the people and not in the government and the Federal government is the representative of the delegated powers.26
Almost two centuries earlier Milton had advocated the same principle when he wrote of his idea of Parliament or Grand Council:
In this grand council must sovereignty, not transferred but delegated only and as it were deposited, reside.27
Again we see not only the same ideas and principles advocated, but quite literally the same words used to express those ideas and principles.
POPULAR DEMOCRACY
Even though these early political philosophers were champions of individual liberty, they were also quick to understand the dangers posed by unbridled popular democracy. Milton based his fear of man’s misuse of governmental power upon his belief that man is a fallen creation. This is seen in lines eighty-nine through ninety-three of Paradise Lost.28 Man has within himself “unworthy Powers” according to Milton. Calhoun stated that man is so “constituted that his direct or individual affections are stronger than his sympathetic or social feelings.”29 Therefore even a democracy can become oppressive to personal liberty.
Milton recognized the selfish tendency for men in power to attempt to enlarge their power and to rule for their own good.30 John Stuart Mill, a contemporary of Calhoun, identified as one of the dangers of representative government the situation in which the representatives’ interests are not “identical with the general welfare of the community.”31 Mill agreed with Calhoun’s and Milton’s assessment of human nature and the inherent danger it holds for personal liberty. Mill thought that “One of the greatest dangers lies in the sinister interest of the holders of power.”32 Calhoun went on to assert that government has a strong tendency to abuse its powers. This tendency arises from the fact that all governments are administered by men who are naturally self-centered.33 Milton in his Real and Easy Way had already asserted that large numbers of men could be corrupted within the walls of a parliament.34
APOLOGISTS FROM MILTON TO DABNEY
Webster defines an apologist as one who “speaks or writes in defense of a faith, cause, or an institution.” A review of the works of Milton and Locke will show both to be persistent apologists. Paradise Lost was written to justify the acts of God. Prior to that epic, Milton had written several political apologies, the most notable being Tenure, The Second Defense, Eikonoklastes, and An Apology.
John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government was written to justify the efforts to remove Charles II from the British throne. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson defended the action of the colonies by an appeal to the world to review the evidence of the king’s abuses and usurpations. In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolution, Jefferson defended the right of the states against the intrusion of the federal government. Calhoun spent a large portion of his life defending the South. In his last speech before the United States Senate, a speech that was read by a colleague because Calhoun was too weak to speak, he traced the history of the nation and the South’s continued retreat before the onslaught of Federalism.35 Using Calhoun’s arguments, the Reverend R. L. Dabney wrote A Defense of Virginia and Through Her the South. The efforts to justify the South by the post-war Southern apologists were based upon the ideas of Calhoun and Jefferson. Calhoun and before him Jefferson were the apologists of their day who had drawn their political concepts from even earlier apologists such as Locke and Milton.
The crowning efforts of all Southern political theorists were the writings of the post-war apologists who knowingly or not drew their ideas from Milton. The labors of the Southern apologists have been largely ignored by word merchants subservient to the ruling powers who have taken the coin of the realm to propagate the Yankee myth of history. Yet, the apology was written. After reviewing the work of these last Southern apologists, one can only admit that their work was well done and befitting those descended of so many kings.
CONCLUSION
Southerners such as Jefferson, Calhoun, and Dabney drew upon the works of Locke and Milton to present the principles of Southern political thought. The parallel between Southern philosophy and Milton’s political ideas is evidence of the degree of influence these ideas had upon the South. It is a noble heritage unknown by too many Southerners.
The influence of ideas from one generation to the next travels in ever-increasing circles much as the ever-increasing circles produced by ripples on the surface of a pond. Long after the initial splash, the circles continue to spread out over the surface of the water. And so it has been with the political philosophy popularized by Milton, Locke, Jefferson, and Calhoun. With the passage of time, the ripples of influence have continued to widen as these ideas continue to touch generations of Southerners. The question remains as to whether the ripples will yet touch us.
E. F. Reicherd, Fifth Company, Washington Artillery, Louisiana. This young man enlisted on March 6, 1862, and served until his death on September 19, 1863, at the Battle of Chickamauga, Georgia.” (Image courtesy of Tulane University Libraries, Howard-Tilton Memorial Library, New Orleans, Louisiana)
CHAPTER 8
Secession: Answering the Critics
A fig for the Constitution! When the scorpion’s sting is probing us to the quick, shall we stop to chop logic? … There is no magic in the word union.1
John Randolph of Roanoke
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
In the following chapter we will look at some of the arguments used by those who do not believe that the South, or any other state or group of states, has or ever has had the right to withdraw peacefully from the Union. What irony! Americans who oppose secession for Dixie find themselves in bed with the communist generals of Yugoslavia and the communist hard-liners of the former Soviet Union.
We will look at seven of the most popular myths about the nature of secession as it related to the South in 1860. We will demonstrate where and why the critics’ arguments are faulty and prove once again that our Southern ancestors were correct in their claim to the right of secession.
We will also show how the United States Military Academy at West Point has in its library a textbook on the Constitution which teaches that secession was and is a right of each state. This book, used as a textbook and also kept as a reference, is William Rawle’s Views on the Constitution published in 1825. Rawle’s book was used as a text for one year and is still kept in the library at West Point. Another work which we will refer to is Commentaries on American Law by James Kent. This book, in one of its editions, was used at West Point from 1827 until just after the War for Southern Independence. Kent did not approach the subject of secession per se, but left no doubt about his belief in the reserved rights of the states and the independent nature of the states when they acceded to the Union. These facts have proven to be more than a little embarrassing to the enemies of Southern independence. Be assured that we take great pride in bringing these facts to you!
Secession: Answering the Critics
An overbearing Yankee once asked a Southerner, “When are you people going to stop fighting the war?” The cracker responded, “Oh, I suppose we’ll stop fighting when you damn Yankees stop shooting at us.”
With far more insight than the average viewer of Yankeefied television, our redneck philosopher cut through innumerable myths and identified the key issue. Indeed, today we Southerners are bombarded by a constant barrage of cultural insults and falsehoods. These attacks come from the liberal media of Yankeedom and their Scalawag running dogs of the “New South” mentality. Yet, when Southerners stand up and defend their heritage and the values of the South, they are met with the condescending question, “Why are you people still fighting the war?”
Secession movements are so common today that no one questions if these movements are correct or not. The secessionists of Quebec, Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and various republics of the former Soviet Union are blessed with official sanction from the liberal media and even the government in Washington. How od
d! Odd indeed, when we remember how the liberal establishment falls all over itself in its efforts to prove how evil and wrong secession is for the South.
Why is it that something that was condemned as evil and wrong in 1861 was given official sanction by the same Republican Party in 1991? Why is it that the government in Washington will applaud Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia for withdrawing his country from the Soviet Union’s orbit, but continue its attack upon Jefferson Davis and his fellow Southerners for doing the same thing for the South? By now you no doubt know why these attacks continue—because our conquering masters must never cease their propaganda about the righteousness of their oppression of the Southern people. In doing so they have promoted several myths about secession. According to Yankee myth, Southern secession was (and therefore still is) wrong for several reasons:
1. Secession would have destroyed the United States and the South.
2. Secession was a way to protect the system of slavery, and the “Civil War” would not have been fought had slavery not existed.
3. Lincoln was justified in using whatever force at whatever cost to save the Union.
4. Secession is an act of a sovereign state, and no state in America was sovereign before or after the Declaration of Independence was signed.
5. The original thirteen states did not secede from the Union when they withdrew from the Articles of Confederation. The perpetual union under the Articles of Confederation is the same union under the United States Constitution.
6. Secession was an action taken by Southerners to save the institution of slavery and/or to destroy America.
7. Nullification and secession had already been proven illegal by the federal government.
The people of the South have a long record of resistance to tyrants that in history extends back to their ancestral homelands. In 1320 in the Declaration of Arbroath, otherwise known as the Scottish Declaration of Independence, the nobles of Scotland stated that they had the right to give their consent to their king and to withdraw it from him. They stated that, if the king who governed them did not rule as they saw fit, they reserved the right to “make some other man who was well able to defend us our King.”
In 1570, the French Huguenots were resisting the tyranny of those who believed in the divine right of kings. In that year European Calvinists issued Vmdiciae Contra Tyrannos (A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants), in an effort to prove that the people had the right to resist the unlawful act of government (kings). Speaking of the rights of kings, they said, “they [kings] should acknowledge that for them, they as it were borrow their power and authority.”2 Vmdiciae Contra Tyrannos issued a warning to the believers in centralized power that the people had a right to remove any king who acted beyond the realm of the law. This idea was restated by Thomas Jefferson in the American Declaration of Independence.
In the year 1578 George Buchanan wrote The Rights of the Crown in Scotland. This was another defense of the people’s right to govern the state, by stating where a king obtained his right to rule, and in what manner “and by whom an unjust king could be removed. Buchanan shows that it is from the people that the king (“king” here is used as a synonym for government) derives power, not an absolute power, but a conditional power. Buchanan states that “the people, from whom he derived his power, should have the liberty of prescribing its bounds; and I require that he should exercise over the people only those rights which he has received from their hands.”3
In 1643 the Reverend Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex Rex (The Law and The Prince). Rutherford sounded a theme that would be repeated by the Founding Fathers of the United States and the Confederate States by showing how the people had the right to recall the delegated powers they had “loaned” government, be that a king, a parliament, or a president. Rutherford stated, “Those who have power to make, have power to unmake a king. Whatever the king doth as king, that he doth by a power borrowed from (or by a fiduciary power which is his by trust) the estates, who make him king.”4
Political ideas such as government by the consent of the governed and State’s Rights do indeed have a long and rich heritage for all Americans.
The critics of Southern secession use two broad avenues of attack when wrestling with the idea of secession. First, they use an appeal to emotion by seeking to take the high moral ground and, by inference, to leave the South in the position of supporting an immoral object, be that the destruction of “America,” or the support of human slavery (note arguments 1, 2, 3, and 6 above). Second, they make a tortuous and difficult appeal to legality (note arguments 4, 5, and 7). In other words, “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S.” Let us now take a close look at these arguments and in so doing expose and explode a few more Yankee myths.
1. Secession would have destroyed the United States and the South.
With this appeal to emotional fantasy, we are urged to disregard all reasons for which the republic of 1776 was called into being. Without the opportunity to say good-bye to the principle of government by the consent of the governed, we Southerners are driven down the dead-end road of regret. At the end of that road we will be instructed to perch again on our “stools of everlasting repentance.”5 It should be remembered that whenever anyone states this first myth about secession, he or she always fails to take note of the fact that the North’s war of aggression did indeed destroy the South. We must question our opponents’ vaunted goodwill for “the United States and the South” when they make the statement that secession would destroy “America” (see point 6).
The anti-secessionist argument that the war was necessary in order to save America from self-destruction and from “falling apart” needs closer investigation. Do secession movements cause the destruction of one or both parties involved in the act of secession? In answering this question, we will not make an appeal to raw emotion; rather, we will adhere to historical facts.
Has secession caused the destruction of one or both parties in the past? If we can show that secession has not caused such misery but in actuality has done the opposite, then the anti-secession statement is false.
Let us now look at some successful secession movements:
A. Ireland seceded from the British empire. Neither Ireland nor the British empire were destroyed as a result of the independence of Ireland from Britain. Both nations have taken their places among the free nations of the world and have played important roles in world history.6
B. Norway seceded from Sweden. For ninety-one years from 1814 until 1905 Norway was in a union with Sweden.7 (The North and South had only been in a union for eighty-four years when Dixie seceded.) In 1905, the legislature of Norway declared that country’s independence. Sweden, after some thought of war, recognized the independence of Norway. Neither country has “gone to the dogs” because of this secession movement, but rather both countries have learned how to work together for common goals. It is sad that “America” could not have pursued the same course.
C. Texas seceded from Mexico.8 Does anyone think that Texas would be better off if it had lost its war of secession with Mexico?
D. Portugal seceded from Spanish rule. Portugal had to fight four “civil wars” with Spain before it gained independence in 1139. This was well before the great world exploration both countries were to experience as independent nations. Secession kept neither Spain nor Portugal from becoming world powers. In fact, it could be argued that secession is what caused their rise as world powers.
E. Panama seceded from Colombia.9 Neither country fell into oblivion because of this successful secession movement. A revealing point can be made in this instance. The secession of Panama could never have happened without the backing of the United States. The history of this fact is well documented but seldom spoken of in the Yankees’ official record of history. Before the War of Southern Independence, the United States supported the secession movement in Texas, and after the War for Southern Independence the United States supported the secession movement in Panama. Strange is the w
orking of the Yankee mind. Over a sixty-five-year period the United States supported secession for Texas from Mexico, opposed secession of the South from the North, and then supported the secession of Panama from Colombia.10
The list of inequities could go on, but the point has been made. Secession in and of itself does not cause the destruction of the nation that secedes nor of the nation from which it withdraws. The bloodshed and evil that can result from a secession movement will occur at the discretion of the nation from which the seceding is being done. If cool and rational heads are in control, then war and heartache are avoided as evidenced in the secession of Norway from Sweden. As in the case of Portugal and Spain, however, it may require many wars before the empire will free its subjugated people.
2. Secession was a way to protect the system of slavery, and the “Civil War” would not have been fought had slavery not existed.
The issue of why the South fought the war has already been covered in Chapter 1. But the anti-secessionist’s notion that the war would have never been fought had it not been for the issue of slavery should be scrutinized.
To say that a civil war would never have been fought if slavery had not existed is to say that slavery causes civil war. Obviously, more civil wars have been fought in which the issue of slavery played no part than otherwise. Nevertheless, many people will accept the notion that without slavery the so-call “Civil War” would have never been fought. Wars are caused by many reasons. Of all issues that have caused war, none is greater than the economic issue.11 To protect its economic well-being, the North waged a war of aggression against the South.12 Economics motivated the war; slavery and maintaining the Union were no more than smoke screens to hide the North’s imperialist objectives. Its empire was built on the graves and ashes of the South. On Southern impoverishment, Northern cumulative wealth was built!
The South Was Right Page 23