Argument taken from the Federalist Papers, along with certain questions and paraphrases.
Quote from Stephen Hopkins found in American Political Writings of the Founding Era, volume 1.
One of the fundamental causes of the Constitutional convention was the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation from reigning in the power of the states. The primary goal of the United States Constitution is to control the passions of the people, specifically in regards to situations that arise causing an outburst of a single opinion among the people (i.e. during the period of Confederation, the people of the various states were able to convince their state legislatures to make laws affecting contracts, effectively retarding the power of contracts between persons.) Our Constitution does this first be erecting a Republican government.
Our Republican government, “guard[s] one part of the society against the injustice of the other party.” It is not be to implied that our Federal government is beyond injustice, however history has shown that the States are more likely to be unjust. The Constitution of the United States, therefore, creates to opposing governments; one Federal and the other State. The Federal government is divided into three branches, with the most powerful being divided into two. The States are divided into three branches, and in most cases the most power being divided into two houses. The State governments also share their power with the local community governments. This is all in an attempt to curtail the possibility of an unjust government. It is also an attempt to curtail the tyranny of the people.
Through the style of our republican government, we are able to create barriers to protect against an unjust ruler. The second way our Republican government protects against the infringements of persons, and State and the Federal governments is through the size of our Republic. In history there has never been a Republic the size of the United States. A severe defect in the State governments, which necessitate the Federal government as a protector, is the closeness of the people to their legislatures. The State governments are too unstable because of how close the people are to their government. In order to keep their job, State legislatures act according to the demands of their constituents rather than according to the principles of justice.
The rule of factions is what has brought down republics throughout history and is what dismantled the American Confederacy. The problem of faction is the main focus of the American Constitution. In order to curtail factions there must be barriers placed to prevent their power from infiltrating the chambers of government. The first step to achieving this has been in the creation of two governments: State and Federal. The second step has been in the creation of an extended Republic, which allows for a multitude of opinions. This is achieved through the House of Representatives, which has traditionally (up until the passage of the 17th Amendment) been the direct representative of the people to the National legislature. They serve a short two year term and are eligible for reelection infinite times. All laws must be passed by them and by the Senate, which is indirectly elected by the people through the State legislatures (until the 17th amendment was passed.) Faction is dismantled in the chambers of our Congress as the multitude of opinions are presented by the House of Representatives and are filtered through the Senators who are further away from the influences of the passions of the people.
This has been dismantled through the adoption of direct election of Senators, but can be restored through the repeal of the same. The individual States are unable to protect against minority and majority factions, which make them the least able to protect the rights and liberties of the people. As was evident in the period leading up to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the States were impotent in protecting justice in particular regards to contracts. The people held too much sway over their elected officials, resulting in the harming of the rights of the minority. Only through a Union, with a Federal government at the head, of the States can the defects of the State constitutions be repaired.
The rights of minority interests in the Federal government are upheld along side those interests of others. By extending the Republic from sea to sea, we have achieved in making all opinions and interests minority and only those that obtain a majority of proponents are made law. The aim of the Federal government is not to create a minority rule in the United States, but rather to represent only those interests shared by the majority of persons. It is left to the States, as small Republics, to represent the interests of the minority. Within small Republics minority factions are able to wield some power within the government. It is the main objective of the Federal government to entertain the interests of all parties, and it is given to the States to entertain the interests of their citizens. By entertaining all interests, the Federal government protects the rights of minorities by permitting them to exist whereas without the Federal government there is a greater chance that the minority opinions will not be heard. Which is why during the periods of Confederation, individuals unable to pay their debts and uphold their contracts were able to persuade their State legislature to nullify their contract and harming a minority party.
A third argument against secession will be brought forth next. I close with the words of Stephen Hopkins, “These, with all other matters of a general nature, it is absolutely necessary should have a general power to direct them, some supreme and overruling authority with power to make laws and form regulations for the good of all, and to compel their execution and observation.”
A well-worded post, to be sure. I have to disagree on principle however. The states are an exact mirror of the federal government with the exception of the powers they are prohibited from by the Constitution. I’ll admit this is true only because of the 17th amendment. Were it not for the popular vote for Senators, the federal government would be fundamentally different in that legislators wouldn’t be popularly elected.
But, because the federal government is now little more than a single large state, it is subject to the issues you brought up of factions having large control. The problem is that those who actually have access to the senators are not the people who elect them, unless they happen to live near Washington D.C. Instead, constituents’ voices are distant while the voices of lobbyists, other senators and those who live around our capitol are much stronger. Look at the discussion on border control. There are no borders being ignored by aliens anywhere near those who live and work in Washington D.C. The problem isn’t really ‘in their back yard’ or real to them. Distance has insulated them both from the problem and from the voices of those who experience the problem. Proximity to factions encouraging the status quo, on the other hand, helps them to ignore the problem.
All politics are local – people only really care about things that effect them frequently, which tends to be things that are near them. I agree with you that the federal government has some benefits in being distant. It keeps any one local problem from attaining a national solution. However, on the flip side, it causes national solutions that create local problems from getting fixed. If there is no ability for states to demonstrate disunity, what facility do they have to prevent abuses from the federal government? Just look at Wickard v. Filburn in which the federal government decided it can and would dictate to private individuals how much wheat they could grow on their own land. If the government devises a law which benefits some states at the cost of one – which is exactly like the problem of faction you outlined manifesting itself in the ‘local’ politics of DC – what recourse does a state have? Threat of succession is the ultimate recourse, the nuclear option. It must exist or the people of a state are never free.
I should probably further comment that I don’t disagree on the fact that unity is a good thing. I disagree that it is a necessary thing. I think the states could exist and be quite happy without a federal government, just as I think an individual county could exist and be quite happy without a state government. Government provides benefits, it’s true, and I wouldn’t throw them away on a whim. But government also creates problems, and the citizens should always weigh the benefits and problems of the government at any given time to determine how or if they should change government.
What I’m getting at is while I agree with much of what you say, I want to argue against any attitude to ‘unity no matter what’. With the limited information I have about the decision to start the Civil War, I think Lincoln made the wrong decision. No one has the right to make a contract that is binding on one’s children. Therefore, even if the agreement by the denizens of the southern states to enter the constitution was binding in such a way that they could never leave it, the agreement wouldn’t be binding on the generation of people during the Civil War. As such, they had every right to leave the union that no longer served their interests. To be forced into an agreement at the end of a weapon is tyranny.
Another post that I will be putting up in the next couple of days deals with the issue of unity and whether or not the Souther states had a right to secede. I won’t disagree with the idea that a contract cannot be forced onto one’s children; however when you turn 18 and register to vote, or if you’re a male and you sign up for the Selected Service, or even if all you do is say the pledge of Allegience, you are signing your name to the contract. This is, of course, assuming that the Constitution is a contract. If, however, the contract was long ago (say around the time of the English Colonies in America), then we exist in a world where that contract is ironclad binding all generations. If the case is that the contract predates the Constitution, then we need to understand whether or not it is still obligatory to us. Our interests, and culture is still the same and we are still a single nation. At the time of the Civil War, we were still a single nation. Secession, in the proper sense, can’t happen. When we become two different nations in character, then the separation will already have been affected. This is what happened during the American Revolution.
You make a good point about signing up to vote and the pledge of allegiance – you are, in effect, signing the contract by taking part.
What do you mean by ‘Secession, in the proper sense, can’t happen.’? What is secession in the proper sense?
I’d also be very curious to hear your views on secession as an ultimate recourse for a disenfranchised minority – I get the sense you will disagree with secession in that context, and I’d like to know what you feel a minority should do when a national government no longer properly represents them or defends their rights.
You cannot secede from yourself. The only time it is legitimate for secession to happen is when there is more than one nation. In the case of the American Revolution, the American colonies were de facto and de jure independent of Great Britain prior to the first shots in 1775. At that point, the colonists had different customs and habits than the British. The South, when it seceded, were not a separate people than the North. Only in the first instance was it legitimate to go through with secession namely because the secession was already affected by the time the Americans and British went to war.
As for a disenfranchised minority, they always have a recourse to revolution. When a given society is no longer able to protect them, a people have a right, duty and obligation to over through that government and institute a new government for future security. But they do not have a right to secession in the sense we are talking about. If a minority feels they are disenfranchised by a given society, and they are unable to establish a new government in that society, then they may move to a new society.
The South certainly was a separate people from the North. Their basic industry and economy was significantly different, as was their stance on slavery. You say the colonies were a de facto and de jure independent organization. I assume de facto because ‘the colonists had different customs and habits than the British’ and de jure because they had their own legal system that, while part of the empire’s legal whole, as a complete system in and of itself. To say that is true of the colonies and not true of states is ludicrous. States have independent constitutions, and complete bodies politic. The Southerners had well documented cultural and habitual differences. The federal government drew the lines of demarcation themselves with the concept of ‘slave’ and ‘free’ states. Barring the fact that there was an ocean between them, the principles behind the colonies and the south were the same, except that the south had a government created via contract and the colonies had a government claiming divine right.
For your second paragraph, I’m unsure where you are arguing in favor of revolution and against secession or not. “But they do not have a right to secession in the sense we are talking about.” In what sense are we talking about secession, and how is it distinct from other forms of secession? What is the difference between secession and ‘mov[ing] to a new society’?
The north and south were a single nation in 1860 as they were in 1865. Both sides shared the same political system, legal system, history, and culture. Yes, the South was an agricultural community while the North was primarily industrial. However, the two sides still were both American as is evident by the South’s own name “Confederate States of America.” Both sides believed themself to be the real America, upholding the beliefs and traditions of the Founding. If this isn’t evidence enough that they were still a single nation, and not two then I don’t know what will convince. The Confederate States and United States were a single government who possessed the same political traditions of republicanism, the same Christian religion, the same committment to self government, and the same history.
I will address the second paragraph for now, and the first in a few hours. We are speaking of secession in the way of a state seceding from another. When quits society, they are not in secession in the same way that a state quits a society. When a state quits a specific society, i.e. the United States, they do not enter into a state of nature but rather enter into another state of society. An individual who moves from country A to country B is not a citizen of country B and is therefore in a state of nature; a person without a country.