Why I am not a secessionist

The buildup has been tremendous, so I hope I can fulfill even part of the expectations. As an American historian who specializes in the nineteenth century, I find secession to be a silly doctrine, silly theorectically and practically.

Too many conservatives today, wedded to localism and states rights (with good reason usually) see in secession a fulfillment and extension of their love of limited government, the ultimate tool to wield against a big bureaucratic regime. Looking across history, their longing eyes settle upon the American South in 1860-61, and they ask: "Wasn't secession the rejection of heavy-handed centralized federal interference with state matters? Wasn't it federalism in action, one layer of government in one region, gallantly defending its constitutional turf?" The answer is no, and, again, it needs to be thought of theoretically and practically (historically). No one who calls himself a conservative can also be a secessionist. Here is why:

Theoretically
1. Secession is Lockean liberalism at its most extreme, textbook Locke actually – if life, liberty, and property are not sufficiently protected, then citizens have a "right to revolution" that invalidates the social contract (the state neglects our interests, so we reclaim the liberties we gave up, and contract a new state) – this has several important consequences: (a.) It weakens the stability of government – why? Who can sufficiently unite upon a reason for secession to give it credence and legitimacy, more legitimacy than the state it seeks to leave? If misconduct of the government is the charge, how do you judge? What is the threshold? Danger to "local rights?" Danger to "slavery?" Danger via the tariff (some ninnies say)? Who decides? (b.) It would deliver society and government into a state of perpetual war, not stable constitutional government – why? Because the threat of secession is blackmail to prevent any legislation a minority opposes – certainly one of the foundations of stable constitutional government is agreeing to play by the rules, and that includes accepting defeat legally and gracefully – secession is essentially the immature reaction of some who do not always get their way, they take their ball and go home – is this stability or anarchy? Bedlam or constitutional government? (c.) Secession is a radical constitutional innovation, akin to Calhoun’s wild, inventive suggestions of dual presidencies and concurrent majorities – radical constitutional innovations are inherently destabilizing, see France and its many constitutions – secession is thoroughly anti-conservative.

2. When I think of the doctrine of secession, I immediately turn to Edmund Burke and his remarks in the Reflections about "cashiering" rulers and the sober reality of revolution. Defending 1688 from those who wanted to compare it the French Revolution, he wrote: "The ceremony of cashiering kings, of which these gentlemen talk so much at their ease, can rarely, if ever, be performed without force. It then becomes a case of war, and not of constitution. Laws are commanded to hold their tongues amongst arms; and tribunals fall to the ground with the peace they are no longer able to uphold ... The speculative line of demarcation, where obedience ought to end, and resistance must begin, is faint, obscure, and not easily definable. It is not a single act, or a single event, which determines it. Governments must be abused and deranged indeed, before it can be thought of; and the prospect of the future must be as bad as the experience of the past. When things are in that lamentable condition, the nature of the disease is to indicate the remedy to those whom nature has qualified to administer in extremities this critical, ambiguous, bitter potion to a distempered state. Times and occasions, and provocations, will teach their own lessons. The wise will determine from the gravity of the case; the irritable from sensibility to oppression; the high-minded from disdain and indignation at abusive power in unworthy hands; the brave and bold from the love of honourable danger in a generous cause: but, with or without right, a revolution will be the very last resource of the thinking and the good.”

All right, so let's break this fascinating Burkean threshold of revolution down and compare it the South in 1860-61. (a.) Note he says that the revolutionary act of overthrowing kings and warring against the established order is not a constitutional matter, but outside law and an act of war. (b.) Since the "line" between obedience and rebellion is "faint, obscure, and not easily definable," rebellion must be taken with extreme gravity and not be due to one event. (c.) Was the US Government "abused and deranged" in 1860-61? I hardly think the election of Lincoln held that possibility, and what did Buchanan or Taney ever do to the South? (d.) Did the future look to be "as bad as the experience of the past?" Since the past (1800-1860) was one of virtual Southern domination of the federal government, I also hardly think the past was bad at all. If the past was not "bad," how can you judge the future? (e.) Was the US Government in a "lamentable position" in 1860-61, a situation that led Southern worthies to "administer in extremities this critical, ambiguous, bitter potion to a distermpered state?" Again, the only people using the words "distempered" and "lamentable" in 1860 were Robert Barnwell Rhett and William Loundes Yancey; hardly credible judges of current events and with remarkably different perceptions of the 1860 world than 3/4 of the nation. (f.) Can we call the Southern secessionists the “wise” among our national leaders, gripped with such a wisdom as to decide upon national dismemberment? The word wise does not come to my lips after Rhett, Yancey, Davis, and the like. When you think of the Websters and Clays who died ten years earlier, these Southerners were merely pygmies among giants. (g.) Was rejection of the Constitution and a revolution truly "the very last resource of the thinking and the good" in 1860-61? I seriously doubt it, even if we agree to disagree about their being "thinking and good." Go to the Gettysburg cemetaries, smile, and ask how the "thinking and good" could have done this.

Secession was an immature violation, to steal Willmoore Kendall's phrase, of "constitutional morality," an anti-democratic, radical impatience with elections and legislation, that said to fellow citizens, "since we cannot always get our way, we opt to leave." Republics do not work that way, unless you are Bolivia or France. Republics that institutionalize facile ways to dismember themselves enter into a self-fulfiling prophecy. Talk enough about secession, and soon enough South Carolina leaves. The practical-historical case against secession will follow.