6. Secession was an action taken by Southerners to save the institution of slavery and/or to destroy America.
The theory that secession was a slaveholders’ wicked plot is favored by many liberals and New South Scalawags.
The idea that to withdraw from the Union was an illegal act is based upon the false notion that the Union was to be perpetual—that in America, government was to have some form of everlasting life. Yet when we look at the first union of American colonies, we will find that even though this union was styled as “perpetual,” it died a natural death.36
In 1643 four New England colonies formed the first union in North America, the United Colonies of New England. This union was declared to be “firm and perpetual.”37 As Kent stated, the colonies that joined this union “… acted in fact as independent sovereignties, and free from the control of any superior power.”38 This union existed for more than forty years. Note that, even though the Yankee colonies had stated that their union was perpetual, it was not. Also note that each of these colonies entered into this union, according to Kent, “… as Free, and Independent Sovereignties.”39 This puts to rest the Yankee myth that the states were never sovereign before or after July 4,1776.
Twice in our history, Northern states have left a “perpetual” Union: once in 1686 at the death of the United Colonies of New England and again in 1787 as they withdrew from union formed by the Articles of Confederation. With such a secessionist track record, is it any wonder that in 1814 the New England states met at Hartford, Connecticut, for the purpose of discussing secession from the federal Union? Even still, the Yankee myth-makers persist in claiming that secession was an evil Southern plot.
Northern myth-makers would have a somewhat valid case if secession from the American Union had never been discussed or written about before the 1860 election. Then and only then would the anti-secessionist argument be valid. Is there a record in American history of secession being taught as a right of the states? The answer is a clear-cut yes.
Secession as Taught at West Point
Yes, as early as 1825 the right of secession was being taught as a clear-cut right of the states. But, even more shocking is the fact that the federal government itself was paying for that teaching. From 1825 to 1826, the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, used William Rawle’s Views of the Constitution as its textbook on constitutional law. Men such as Confederate general Albert Sidney Johnston were taught constitutional law from this book.40 Rawle, born in 1759, was thirty years old when the United States Constitution was adopted. His book was warmly received when published. The North American Review, a journal of Boston political orthodoxy, blessed Rawle’s book as, “… a safe and intelligent guide.”41 Here is what Rawle had to say about state sovereignty and secession:
It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle of which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood. …42
Here you have it from the words of a textbook used at West Point Military Academy. Rawle said that the people held the right to “… determine how they will be governed.” Rawle goes on to state that this right was an “ingredient in the original composition of the general government.” This is merely a reflection of Jefferson’s pronouncement from the Declaration of Independence that a just government was one which was based on the consent of the governed. Rawle is restating a historical fact. The United States was founded on the principle that we, the people, acting through our agent, the state, have the right to give or take away the right of any government to rule over us. This is the natural result of our being a free people. To deny this principle is to attack our very freedom.
But what about the act of secession itself? Rawle was even more specific about when and how a state should and could go about seceding from the Union.
The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution.
But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal.
To withdraw from the Union is a solemn, serious act. Whenever it may appear expedient to the people of a state, it must be manifested in a direct and unequivocal manner.43
Rawle explains how a state should withdraw from the Union. He clearly notes that if a state did leave the Union, that state would leave many benefits behind. Jefferson Davis also felt the same way. In his farewell address to the United States Senate, Senator Davis said, “A state … out of the Union surrenders all the benefits (and they are known to be many), deprives herself of the advantages (and they are known to be great), severs all the ties of affection (and they are close and enduring), which have bound her to the Union.”44 Davis learned well from Rawle. Rawle taught that the secession of a state from the Union had to be carried out carefully. Davis and all Southerners had to weigh the pros and cons of secession and, after doing so, they found the Union wanting. If we look at the manner in which the first eleven states of the South seceded, we would see that they followed Rawle’s prescription for secession.
Because of the defeat of the South during the War for Southern Independence, most Americans find it hard to understand how Rawle could be a patriotic American and also believe in secession (the Yankee myth-makers have done their dirty work very well). As an American, Rawle knew that the Union was dear to all and offered many advantages to member states. But, as an American, he also knew that when the people of a state felt that those advantages no longer existed and that the Union had become a threat to their happiness, the very reason for the Union’s existence was no longer valid. Listen to the words of the first popular “war” song of the South, “The Bonnie Blue Flag.” “As long as the Union was faithful to her trust, like friends and like brethren kind were we and just. But now that Northern treachery attempts our rights to mar, we hoist on high the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears the single star.”45 In song and in deed, the South was making the statement that the Union had lost sight of the real reason for its existence, and was embarking on a course of aggression and oppression. Therefore the Southern states acted in the only way they could to protect the liberty of their people—they seceded from the Union.
There are some important points to note about Rawle’s textbook on constitutional law. First, Rawle was from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a member of a leading family of that Northern city. Even though the book was used by the United States Military Academy as a text to instruct its students in constitutional law and has been used as a reference book since that time, these are not the most important characteristics of Rawle’s work. The most important fact for us to remember is that secession was held to be a legal and a constitutional right for all the states of the Union as early as 1825, the publication date of Rawle’s textbook. Rawle was a friend of both Benjamin Franklin and President George Washington and a leader in the early abolition movement. His textbook was not only used in the Military Academy at West Point, but also by many other colleges and academies.46 The right of secession was not first uttered by some “hot-headed” Southern secessionist, but written eloquently by a “cool-headed” Northerner. The fact that this work was used for at least one year as a textbook at West Point and has been used since that time as a reference work is merely lagniappe.
If Rawle really loved the Union, why did he write about how to secede from the Union? Rawle, like the men of the South some thirty-six years later, did love the Union. But he understood the nature of the Original Constitutional Republic of our Founding Fathers. If the states were able to secede from the Union, i
f and when that Union became oppressive to the people of those states, then they could use this potential to act as a check on the abuse of federal power. Because he loved American liberty more than he loved the Union, Rawle made sure that all those who read his textbook on the Constitution would understand how that liberty could be protected from federal tyranny. Therefore, according to Rawle, only if the liberty of its people were in danger should a state use the extreme measure of secession. Listen to the words of President Jefferson Davis in his inaugural address as Confederate president: “As a necessity, not a choice, we have resorted to the remedy of separation. …”47
Southerners did not desire secession; it was forced upon them. Like Rawle, Southerners loved American liberty more than governmental institutions. Therefore, when faced with the choice of submission to federal tyranny or secession, they chose secession.
7. Nullification and secession had already been proven wrong by the federal government.
In the confused world of the Yankee myth-maker, an assertion is sometimes made that confuses secession with the act of nullification. It is sometimes expressed that the government in Washington had already proven in the South Carolina tariff nullification crisis that the states did not have the right to nullify laws of the federal government.
Jefferson Davis, in his farewell address to the United States Senate in 1861, explained that the two ideas, secession and nullification, were different. He explained that a state’s nullification of acts that it considered unlawful was carried out by a state that was trying to protect its rights within the Union. Further, the act of secession was a final attempt by a state to protect rights that were threatened and that could not be maintained within the Union. As he stated, the act of nullification maintained the Union, whereas the act of secession maintained the rights of the people within the states (see Addendum II).
Most “American” history books will discuss the act of nullification only in the South Carolina context. They will then state that the federal government in Washington was victorious in putting down this Southern act. But little if anything is ever told about the more flagrant acts of nullification by the Northern states.
In the history of the Northern states there is a long record of those states nullifying acts of Congress, parts of the Constitution, and decrees of the federal Supreme Court. Those acts were never the object of an attack by the federal government in Washington. No armies ever marched on or navies blockaded any ports of those Northern states because of their acts of nullification. Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, known as the Fugitive Slave Law, reads, “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall, in Consequence of any law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” The Fugitive Slave Law was part of the agreement that the states and people therein committed themselves to maintain and obey when they adopted the Constitution. No one can say that they did not know what they were doing or that they had been tricked by anyone when they agreed to abide by the law of the land. At this point Southerners, acting in accordance with this law, are usually met by cries from self-righteous Yankees protesting that they had a “right” not to enforce an immoral act such as returning slaves to their masters. Yet when we look into the history of the fugitive slave acts, we will clearly see that the first fugitive slave law that was ever passed in America was enacted by the New England states.
George H. Moore was from New York and in 1866 was a librarian of the New York Historical Society and a corresponding member of the Massachusetts Historical Society. In his History of Slavery in Massachusetts Moore wrote the following: “The original of the Fugitive Slave Law provision in the Federal (U.S.) Constitution is to be traced to this Confederacy [United Colonies of New England], in which Massachusetts was the ruling colony.”48 It should be noted also that by the authority of the United Colonies of New England, the people of New England used their power to deal with a colony of another nation in order to have a slave returned to his owner. As stated in the “Plymouth Colony Records,” a treaty between the Dutch and the English was made in which fugitives, slave or criminal, would be returned to the New England colonies from New Amsterdam (New York).49 Yet in 1843 the states of Massachusetts and Vermont nullified the national Fugitive Slave Law of 1793. The act of these two Northern states was nothing less than breaking a bargain with the states of the South. Note that this was done well after the slave trade had been almost stopped by the action of Congress, an action supported by most Southerners. As long as there was profit to be made, Massachusetts supported slavery, but when the profits declined, citizens of that state became more aggressive in their attacks on slavery. Nevertheless, when two people strike a deal or bargain, both must comply with the agreement; otherwise the agreement is broken. Daniel Webster of Massachusetts expressed this principle clearly: “A bargain broken on one side is broken on all sides.”50 Webster had even stronger words for those in the North who refused to obey the law, yet remained in the Union: “The Union is a Union of States founded upon Compact. If the Northern States willfully and deliberately refuse to carry out their part of the Constitution, the South would be no longer bound to keep the compact.”51 Even the supremecourt of the state of Wisconsin participated in the act of nullifying constitutional law when in 1854 it nullified the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.52
Now, every time we start talking about the Fugitive Slave Law, we are met by self-righteous Yankees and “hung-head” Southern Scalawags telling us how virtuous Northerners were for not sending the poor downtrodden slaves back into bondage. In Chapter 2 we proved that Yankees were not driven by their love of liberty in freeing their slaves, but rather wanted only to get rid of people with whom they did not want to associate, and make a little profit in the process. But for those who require a little more proof, please note that, while the people of the Northern states were refusing to follow the law of the land as far as the Fugitive Slave Law was concerned, they were also passing laws to prevent free Negroes from settling in their states. In 1853 the state of Illinois passed a law to prevent free Negroes from “… coming into this State and remaining ten days, with the evident intention of residing in the same.”53 This law remained in effect until some time after the War for Southern Independence began. How odd is the workings of Yankee justice. If slaves escaped into Massachusetts or Vermont, they could not be restored to their masters even though the Constitution, acts of Congress, and rulings of the federal Supreme Court declared that they had to be so returned. But if free Negroes moved up North into Illinois, they would be arrested and thrown into jail just for being there! After the state of Kansas was admitted into the Union as a “free” state, a member of that state’s legislature stated that Kansas “was and will forever be a white-man’s State.”54 Yet time after time Southerners are told that the North would not keep its part of the bargain by obeying the law of the land and returning runaway salves because it was a friend of freedom and the Negro.
As we have proven, the North was not the champion of the black race and freedom, but only used the slave issue as it used many other issues, as a weapon against the people of the South.
SUMMARY
In the preceding pages we have looked at the major arguments used by the promoters of centralized federal power over the rights of the states and people. We have shown that the arguments advanced against secession are so illogical that only a blatant appeal to raw emotion is left to the detractors of the South. This irrational type of argument is the primary reason why such detractors seldom dare discuss the issue of secession by itself. They always try to use the tar brushes of slavery and racism to paint the South as the hotbed of evil ideas and wicked people. Then they will use their last tar brush and paint Southerners as un-American, and unpatriotic, because they fought against the “American” Union. With these two strokes we Southerners are supposed to hang our heads in shame, and h
umbly sit in the corner on our “stool of everlasting repentance.” This was the motivation behind and the desired response of such propaganda as PBs’s “The Civil War” series. But something has changed. From across the South and America, people are no longer accepting everything their “benevolent” masters are telling them. People are beginning to question much of the liberal “truth” about such matters as secession and the South.
With the break-up of the old communist empire in Eastern Europe, people are beginning to question the value of “bigger is better” government. Even the new Soviet Commonwealth is having to wrestle with the problem of republics declaring their independence. Americans are having to look again at why the South fought for independence and why the federal government fought against the South. Americans are becoming embarrassed by the thought of their government, in 1861, pursuing the same policy that the communist generals of Yugoslavia and the communist dictators of the Soviet Union followed in repressing movements for independence. If we have learned nothing else from the KGB-led communist coup in Moscow, it should be this: those in power do not take lightly the break-up of their empire (Union) be it Soviet or American. This was the response of those in power in Washington in 1861. The radical party of the North claimed that the South did not have the right to secede and used brute military force to “prove” its point—just as the Chinese communists did in Tiananmen Square and as the communist hard-liners tried to do in Russia.
The South Was Right Page 25