38:44
U. S. History I - 8.2 - Podcast - Secession & War - Thomas Woods
Scott Clifton
Overview
This video explores the concept of secession in U.S. history, challenging the notion that it is inherently backward or reactionary. It delves into historical arguments supporting the right of secession, particularly focusing on the Southern states' perspective leading up to the Civil War. The discussion examines constitutional interpretations, proposed amendments, and the views of prominent historical figures. It also contrasts the modern concept of a singular sovereign state with older, layered forms of political organization, drawing parallels between historical secessionist sentiments and 20th-century totalitarianism, and considers the potential alternate historical trajectories if secession had been peacefully accommodated.
How was this?
Save this permanently with flashcards, quizzes, and AI chat
Chapters
- Secession, often portrayed as backward, can be a progressive force allowing differing peoples to peacefully resolve differences.
- The video aims to raise 'forbidden questions' about secession that are often discouraged.
- The publisher's edits to the book led to a lack of detail, a common criticism.
Understanding secession as a potentially progressive tool reframes historical conflicts and offers a different perspective on national unity and dissolution.
The speaker's previous suggestion that secession can be a civilized way for differing peoples to part ways peacefully.
- Jefferson Davis argued that the 10th Amendment supports the right of secession.
- The 10th Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.
- The Constitution does not explicitly grant the federal government power to suppress secession, nor does it prohibit states from seceding, implying it's a reserved right.
- The Confederate Constitution's silence on secession was consistent with the argument that an express allowance wasn't needed for legitimacy.
This chapter introduces a key legal argument used to justify secession, highlighting the constitutional debates surrounding states' rights and federal power.
The argument that since the Constitution doesn't mention secession, the power to secede rests with the states.
- Attempts to amend the Constitution to clarify secession's status suggest it was not clearly prohibited.
- Proposed amendments limiting secession imply its existence as a power that needed restriction.
- Historical figures like William R. and Thomas Jefferson believed in a right to secession as a last resort.
- William Lloyd Garrison advocated for Northern secession, arguing 'no Union with slaveholders' for moral and practical reasons.
Examining proposed amendments and the views of influential figures provides further evidence and context for the historical debate over secession.
Representative Thomas Florence's proposed amendment in 1861 stating 'no State or the people thereof shall retire from this Union without the consent of 3/4s of all the states.'
- Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the Union was formed by voluntary agreement, and states hadn't forfeited their sovereignty.
- Tocqueville suggested it would be difficult to disprove a state's right to withdraw from the contract.
- Many Northern newspapers in 1861 supported Southern secession, drawing parallels to the colonies' separation from Britain.
- Secession threats were not unique to the South; New England threatened secession multiple times in the early 19th century.
This section broadens the perspective by including foreign analysis and demonstrating that secessionist ideas were present in the North as well, challenging the narrative of Southern exceptionalism.
New England's threats to secede in 1804, 1808-1809 (due to Jefferson's embargo), and at the Hartford Convention in 1814 (against the War of 1812).
- Northern soldiers often cited fighting for the preservation of the Union, while Southern soldiers fought for self-government.
- These differing motivations reflect the conflict between nationalist and compact theories of the Union.
- The modern state is characterized by a single, overriding sovereign, unlike older political systems with layered jurisdictions.
- Adolf Hitler despised states' rights as an obstacle to absolute power and supported the Union's cause in the Civil War.
Understanding the motivations of soldiers and the nature of the modern state provides insight into the core ideological differences that fueled the conflict and continues to shape political thought.
Hitler's writings in 'Mein Kampf' expressing support for Lincoln and contempt for states' rights, viewing them as impediments to national unity and power.
- The Lincoln 'mythos' is used today to justify actions that depart from settled law, such as suppressing dissent.
- Lincoln's legacy, including actions like jailing political prisoners and closing newspapers, is cited to legitimize modern overreach.
- Supreme Court Justice David Davis's opinion in Ex parte Milligan stated the Constitution is a law for rulers and people equally, in war and peace.
- The argument that 'even Lincoln did it' serves as a pretext for expanding government power, particularly during crises.
This chapter critically examines how the historical narrative of Lincoln and the Civil War is used to legitimize contemporary governmental actions, often at the expense of civil liberties.
The use of Lincoln's actions (like suspending habeas corpus) to justify modern government actions, such as wiretapping controversies.
- A peaceful secession might have led to different outcomes, such as non-intervention in World War I.
- World War I exacerbated numerous negative trends, including the rise of Nazism and the Bolshevik Revolution.
- Slavery was politically doomed due to international moral pressure and economic factors, even in an independent South.
- Most countries that abolished slavery in the Western Hemisphere in the 19th century did so peacefully, unlike the U.S.
Considering alternative historical scenarios encourages critical thinking about the necessity and consequences of the Civil War, and the broader implications of national consolidation.
The possibility that a separate Confederate States of America might not have intervened in World War I, potentially altering its devastating global impact.
Key takeaways
- Secession can be viewed not just as a reactionary movement, but as a mechanism for resolving societal differences.
- The 10th Amendment and the absence of explicit prohibition in the Constitution are central arguments for the right of secession.
- Historical attempts to amend the Constitution regarding secession suggest its existence was acknowledged.
- Secessionist sentiments were present in Northern states, indicating it was a broader political discussion, not solely a Southern phenomenon.
- The modern concept of a singular, absolute sovereign state contrasts with historical models of layered jurisdictions and limited government.
- The legacy of Lincoln and the Civil War has been used to legitimize expansions of government power and the suppression of civil liberties.
- Even without the Civil War, slavery was likely doomed due to international pressure and evolving economic realities.
- Exploring alternate histories, like a peacefully seceded South, can reveal different potential paths for global events.
Key terms
Secession10th AmendmentReserved RightsInsurrectionCompact TheoryNationalist TheoryStates' RightsFederal GovernmentSovereigntyHabeas Corpus
Test your understanding
- How does the 10th Amendment relate to the argument for a state's right to secede?
- What historical evidence suggests that secession was considered a legitimate, albeit debated, option in American political discourse?
- In what ways has the 'Lincoln myth' been used to justify expansions of federal power and limitations on civil liberties?
- What are the core differences between the nationalist and compact theories of the Union, as reflected in soldiers' motivations?
- Why might a peaceful secession have led to different global outcomes, particularly concerning events like World War I?