Book Notes - One Nation Indivisible

One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution (Palo Alto, CA: Fultus, 2006), Amazon.com $21.99.

Publisher's Description

Is secession legal under the United States Constitution? "One Nation, Indivisible?" takes a fresh look at this old question by evaluating the key arguments of such anti-secession men as Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln, in light of reason, historical fact, the language of the Constitution, and the words of America's Founding Fathers. Modern anti-secession arguments are also examined, as are the questions of why Americans are becoming interested in secession once again, whether secession can be avoided, and how an American state might peacefully secede from the Union.

Author's Introduction

"One nation, indivisible…"

Like most Americans, I grew up reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of every school day, and at a variety of other activities as well, from church services to sporting events. I gave very little conscious thought to this ritual; I simply considered it a part of everyday life and my patriotic duty as an American. I didn’t entirely understand what those words “one nation, indivisible” meant, and wouldn’t understand them for a number of years, but it was enough for me as a child to follow along because I saw everyone else doing it. Besides that, it just sounded so good.

In time, I learned that the words “one nation, indivisible,” meant that the fifty United States cannot be separated from one another, that the entity we call the “Union” is a permanent institution. As much as modern Americans seemed to take that idea for granted, however, I soon learned that this had not always been the case. Indeed, it seemed that up until the 1860s there was quite a lot of disagreement concerning the nature of the American Union, whether it was a nation or a confederation, whether the states were bound to one another in perpetuity or could “secede,” if they so chose. Eventually, I learned that our sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln, had supposedly put these issues to rest by militarily opposing the secessions of eleven discontented states, including my own home state of Virginia, in a war that became the bloodiest conflict ever fought by Americans. Lincoln saw the United States of America as “a nation proper,” a permanent institution from which no state could be permitted to separate of its own accord. Those who contended otherwise were traitors, threatening us with the prospect that “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” might very well “perish from the earth”.

My discovery that Virginia had been once involved in a shooting war with other states of the Union, that Americans had fought so bitterly against other Americans, and that landmarks I passed frequently in Northern Virginia had once been bloody battlegrounds in that war, quite frankly, appalled me. I could not comprehend any reason why Americans might fight other Americans, nor could I fathom why anyone would choose to fight against Mr. Lincoln. Everything I’d been taught about him indicated that he might very well be one of the greatest men the world had ever produced. As I understood matters, Lincoln had fought for our country’s very right to exist; and, if this were not enough, why, he was also a great humanitarian. Had he not freed the slaves? I was proud of the Lincoln legacy, proud to visit places where he once stood, and especially proud that the date of my birth had fortuitously fallen on his. In my young mind, he was ever Abraham Lincoln: Patriot and Humanitarian – an American for the Ages and the standard by which true political greatness must invariably be measured in this country, perhaps in the world, for all time.

Imagine my consternation then to learn that one of my own ancestors had sided with the traitorous secessionist states, fighting under the command of a man named Mosby in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Imagine also my confusion at hearing even my teachers at school praising the virtues and nobility of a Confederate general named Robert E. Lee. But how could anyone who was supposed to be virtuous and noble, whether from my own lineage or not, have sided against a man such as Lincoln and a cause such as the Union?

These were the initial questions that drove my search for answers concerning this conflict, the persons involved, and the reasons for which they fought. In conducting this search, I soon found myself in the hitherto unimaginable position of questioning the integrity and legacy of Abraham Lincoln; and in doing so, I inevitably had to question the words “one nation, indivisible”. The facts I eventually uncovered in this search astonished me, and my view of the United States of America and its history will never be the same.

This is a timely discussion. The 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth (2009) is fast approaching, and much will undoubtedly be said in the coming months and years concerning his legacy. Much is being said already. For example, former New York governor Mario Cuomo recently released a book entitled: Why Lincoln Matters: Today More than Ever, a work that concentrates on comparing the Lincoln legacy to our modern political climate. In an interview with Newsweek prior to the book’s release, Cuomo remarked that Lincoln’s “superior intelligence” has always impressed him. “There has never been an equal,” Cuomo stated. “Not Jefferson, not John F. Kennedy. He had the finest mind in American political history – certainly among presidents.”

At one time, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with Cuomo’s statement; and many, perhaps even most Americans agree with it now. Such has been the enduring power of Abraham Lincoln’s legacy. For this reason alone, I feel that it’s altogether fitting and proper for us to re-examine Lincoln’s life and deeds. However, even if we were not faced with the imminent bicentennial anniversary of Lincoln’s birth, we would still find ourselves confronting his legacy, particularly that of “one nation, indivisible”.

Conduct a search for the word “secession” on the Internet sometime and you may be surprised by what you find. Secession movements are cropping up at an increasing rate worldwide, most famously to date in the Canadian province of Quebec. Quebec has not yet voted to secede, however, the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that the province does have the right to do so, and the issue will surely return to the ballot again in the future, although it may be a disgruntled Alberta that takes up the torch next time. In another interesting example, Scotland now seems to be seriously re-evaluating its relationship with the United Kingdom for the first time since the 1700s, and is steadily acquiring more political clout. In 1999, the Scottish parliament convened for the first time in nearly three hundred years. Where Scotland may go from here remains to be seen, but its present path certainly could lead to secession and independence.

Nor is the United States of America immune to the secessionist bug, despite its past history. At present, there are small but numerous secessionist movements underway within this country. Prominent examples include: Vermont, California, Alaska, the states of the old Southern Confederacy – most notably, South Carolina – the New England states, and Hawaii.

Now some who read this, or who have otherwise come across references to modern American secessionist movements in other sources, surely must be asking, “Why?” Why are secession movements arising here, of all places? Why would anyone not want to be a part of this country? For what possible reason would anyone consider giving up the title of ‘American citizen’? How would a state or region even go about leaving the Union? Didn’t we settle this issue with Lee’s surrender? Are we not truly “one nation, indivisible”?

Typically, there are three principle elements that drive a secession movement: fears concerning a loss of cultural, religious, and ideological distinctiveness; fears concerning a loss of individual liberty; and conflicting loyalties – such as between one’s state or region and the country as a whole. All these elements can be found at work in our society today, and their impact is slowly but inexorably intensifying. We are now being forced to confront the fact that there are serious, fundamental divisions among those of us living here in these United States. Whether we would prefer to admit it or not, we can no longer claim to be one people.

The 2000 and 2004 general elections served to exemplify this growing political-ideological division in our midst in no uncertain terms, bringing about the first serious, open discussion of secession outside of fringe politics in over a century. Hearkening back to the infamous “red and blue state” electoral maps of Elections 2000 and 2004, it appears that some in the “blue states” may want out of the Union, and some in the “red states” may be glad to see them go.

In a November 9, 2004, article entitled, “Blue States Buzz over Secession,” the Washington Times reported that the Internet had “exploded with talk of a blue state confederacy,” which would separate various left-leaning portions of the country from what some termed the “rednecks in Oklahoma” and the “homophobic knuckle-draggers in Wyoming.” The article quotes an anonymous Internet user who had this to say to red-state conservatives: “We hold our noses as we fly over you. We are sickened by the way you treat people that are different from you. The rest of the world despises America, and we don’t want to be lumped in with you anymore.”2 In an article entitled “The Case for Blue State Secession: Why Prolong this Marriage?” an internet commentator simply named “Rene G.” described the United States as a “marriage” beset by domestic strife, and suggested that divorce is preferable to both sides getting together every 4th of July and putting on a false front for a global neighborhood that “knows our marriage is a sham?” 3 One resident of Arlington, Massachusetts wrote a letter to “red state” newspaper readers, also calling for a divorce:

So let’s settle this amicably. We’ll let you visit the Pacific Ocean and the Smithsonian without a passport if you’ll let us visit the Grand Canyon and Orlando. Your Democratic voters are welcome to move to our new, Scandinavian-style nation.

And here are some examples from “right-wing” secession movements that predate the post Election 2004 secession buzz:

From a letter by Dr. Michael Hill, President of the League of the South [displayed on Dixienet.org]:

The people of the South must come to understand that they indeed are a “nation” in the organic, historical sense of the word. As individuals and communities, we must secede culturally from a world that is waging cultural genocide against our traditions, our heritage and our values.

From the “Lowell Declaration” on Vermont Sovereignty.com:

The U.S. government has grown too large, is too out of touch with the people of the nation and is too expensive too maintain. The U.S. government has often usurped the Constitutional limits set by the 10th amendment.

A California independence website calling itself “Free the Bear” cites several grievances against the US federal government, including the following:

For erecting a multitude of new bureaucracies and sending swarms of their agents to harass our people and to tax our people out of their substance. For abolishing our most valuable laws by unconstitutional edicts by the federal judiciary. For the federal legislature’s usurping of power from our own legislature by issuing unconstitutional edicts to legislate for our supposed benefit.

ChristianExodus.org, an organization calling for Christians to move to South Carolina and secede, cites recent gay marriage rulings and other issues as causes for secession on its website:

The efforts of Christian activism have proven futile over the past five decades and, whereas desperate times require desperate measures, we are now in the most desperate of times…Christians must now draw a line in the sand and unite in a sovereign state to dissolve our bond with the current union comprised as the United States of America.

These are not new concerns. For as long as nations have existed, men have longed for governments made in their own image, and Americans are no exception, as the following two examples from our history illustrate:

From the Declaration of Independence, 1776: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

From South Carolina’s address to the Southern states, 1860:

The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position toward the Northern States that our ancestors in the colonies did toward Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. “The general welfare” is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British Parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation this “general welfare” requires. Thus the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government, and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.

The question of what ails our country politically, and whether secession is a suitable cure for the disease, will be addressed, to some extent, in the final section of this book; however, it is not the primary consideration I would like to draw the reader’s attention to here. Instead, I would rather focus on a more fundamental question: is secession even possible in the American Republic? For if we truly are “one nation, indivisible,” then it’s useless to talk of secession in any other than a purely academic fashion.

Inevitably, some will ask, “Didn’t we already settle this issue of secession at Appomattox?” For many, the answer is yes. As far as they are concerned, right or wrong, Lee’s surrender was the death-knell of secession, and it is there that the matter should forever rest. We fought a long, bloody, devastating war over the issue more than a century ago, so why should we not simply allow the results of that contest to stand?

The reader will have to evaluate this question for his or her own self, but I feel that we can ill afford to end our discussion of secession on the basis of who won a historical military conflict. After all, war is the exercise of force, not right; and those who defend the idea that Northern triumph rightfully decided the issue of secession would probably not want that same logic extended to other areas of life and experience. For instance, if a man draws a gun on you and takes your wallet, is it now rightfully his because he had the power to take it? If a woman is unable to fend off an attacker and is raped, should her assailant walk free because he won a contest of brute strength?

I dare say few of us would be willing to defend the idea that “might makes right” — which is really nothing more than back-alley bully logic — should serve as the cornerstone of legitimate government in any country that prides itself on being “the land of the free”. Yet it amazes me how few of us find fault with the idea that the destinies of eleven Southern states, and even the entire issue of secession itself, was “rightfully” decided because the North was able to militarily subjugate the South. Surely an intellectually sophisticated and free people can manage a better justification for their political convictions than a glorified big-stick policy! And surely any President who is praised for his superior intellect must have had nobler reasons for his deeds than to act as wielder of such a policy. If the United States of America truly is “one nation, indivisible,” we should see evidence of this aside from the notion of “he-who-beats-up-the-other-guy-wins”. The facts of history, and logic itself, should stand united with Lincoln on the unassailable heights of the political-intellectual battlefield, supremely triumphant against all comers.

The purpose of this book will be to see whether the facts of history and logic do stand with Lincoln, what if anything was decided at Appomattox, and how these considerations should affect our reception to the idea of secession today. Abraham Lincoln, particularly his words and deeds during the secession crisis of the 1860s, will be brought to trial within these pages. Daniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts, respected orator, and a man often considered the foremost constitutional scholar of his day, will be brought as co-defendant. The positions advocated by these two famous political figures formed the core of anti-secession scholarship in the 19th Century, and are still invoked by their admirers today. Any discussion of secession, whether it has to do with the Southern states in the 1860s, or with modern American political movements, must necessarily come to terms with these men; and, therefore, so must we.

In part one, we will examine the arguments brought primarily by Webster concerning the idea of secession in light of the founding and composition of the Union. In part two, we will examine arguments, primarily Lincoln’s, directed against the secession of the Southern states in 1860 and 1861. In part three, we will examine anti-secession arguments that are mostly modern in nature. Finally, in part four, we will briefly discuss the implications of what we have examined in light of our country’s current political climate and contemporary secession movements. By the end of this discussion, I hope that you the reader will have gleaned something definitive, or at least benefited in some small way from the research that I have conducted on this subject over the years. We will be making a serious effort to determine whether the United States of America really is “one nation, indivisible”. We will test and see how strong the ties that bind our political fabric truly are.

That said, before beginning I believe I should take a moment to reveal a bit about my perspective in presenting this material.

Most Americans know the War of 1861-1865 as “the Civil War”. However, since I’m already choosing to quibble with a number of commonly accepted notions, many of which I held to myself for some time, I hope that the reader will not begrudge me one additional deviation from the norm. For that reason, I ask your indulgence in referring to this war as the “War of Secession,” as opposed to “the Civil War”.

“Okay,” sighs the reader who is already wondering what he or she has gotten into, “Why the name change? Is nothing sacred?”

I believe the term “Civil War” is a misnomer for this conflict. A civil war is a conflict between opposing factions of the same country, and is waged for control of the whole. Historical examples of this would include such infamous power struggles as took place in Rome, England, and France, and where the goal was domination of the entire nation or empire through control of the central government. However, this was not the case in our own so-called “Civil War”. Southern secessionists in 1861 were not seeking to conquer Washington or the Northern states and rule the entire American Union; they were fighting for their independence. In the South, the war was, and is sometimes still referred to as, “the War for Southern Independence”. In the North, the war was known as “the War of the Rebellion” or “the War for the Union”. Any of these titles for the conflict would be applicable from the position of the particular side they represent; however, since control of the central government was never an issue in the conflict, I do not believe that the term “civil war” is at all applicable.

Nor is the term “War Between the States” an entirely accurate description of this conflict. The states were directly involved in the fight because they provided the troops that both sides fielded; however, the war was directed, not by individual states, but by two central governments: the United States and the Confederate States. Thus there were two primary factions in conflict here, not a jumble of separate states in conflict with one another, as the title “War Between the States” suggests.

“War of Secession” is, I feel, the best term for this conflict because it unites the disparate interests of both sides in one truly common theme. Without the fact of secession, there would have been no war, certainly not as we know it today. The opposing forces took to the battlefield under the color of different ideological and political banners, but it was the single question of secession that brought them there, regardless of their opinion on that question.

Now having provided a bit of background and purpose, I ask that you allow the information you find in these pages to speak for itself. Let reason stand as your guiding light in evaluating the evidence and analysis offered. For the purpose of this trial, let traditional heroes briefly descend from the cloud-tops and traditional villains rise up from perdition. Let us, with Benjamin Franklin, doubt a little of our own infallibility. Let us turn back time and endeavor, like the ancient Bereans who so impressed the Apostle Paul, to see whether the things we have been taught are so.

Robert F. Hawes Jr.

Lexington, SC – May 2006