Does secession lead to anarchy or despotism?
Lincoln equated secession with anarchy and despotism. In his inaugural address of 1861, he said:
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
Anarchy is defined as the absence of government, and despotism, as government exercising oppressive and absolute power. Lincoln’s rhetoric, equating secession with anarchy and despotism, was therefore clearly at odds with reality.
When Lincoln assumed office on March 4, 1861, seven States had already seceded and formed the Confederate States of America—a Union structured much like the one they had just left. The facts “on the ground” provided clear and convincing evidence that by the time Lincoln was inaugurated, secession had concluded peacefully without chaos or tyranny in either the North or the South. There was certainly no hint whatsoever of either anarchy or despotism.
Lincoln also implied that secession thwarted the will of the majority, but here again Lincoln’s suggestion was more nonsense than fact. In 1860-61, when each State considered secession, they did so with proper respect for the majority, as evidenced by the procedures they established. They used the same approach, a convention of the people, as was employed when the States first joined the Union. Majorities in some States, such as Virginia, initially decided against secession, but seven others gave their enthusiastic support and properly approved the withdrawal of their State from the Union.
Every State convention voting to secede reported majorities exceeding two-thirds (66%), with the sole exception being Alabama whose majority exceeded three-fifths (60%). The States of Texas, Tennessee, and Virginia (after their conventions of the people) also submitted the question to the public at large, and the results of these statewide elections produced even greater majorities—ranging from 69% to 78%.
Would Lincoln have also claimed the secession of 1776 to be the essence of anarchy or despotism? Unquestionably, the transformation of the colonies in 1776 into free and independent States lead to the most perfect form of government ever devised by mankind.
Perhaps if the secessions of 1860-61 had been allowed to flourish, another significant advancement in governance would have occurred. The Unions of both the North and South would have been held in check against abuses of their authority for fear member States might choose to withdraw in favor of the other Union, or even a new confederation. Competing governments might have also hastened the natural demise of slavery, instead of pitting the races against each other as occurred during the ill-conceived Reconstruction of seceded States.
The irony of Lincoln’s anarchy and despotism argument is that his thwarting of the South’s peaceful withdrawal from the Union brought forth the very despotism he claimed to be preventing. There has never been a time in America’s history with more abuses of individual and Constitutional rights than those perpetuated by Lincoln’s so-called efforts to “Save the Union.”
Throughout history, whenever secession has succeeded, it has served to enhance liberty and freedom. Secession is by far the most effective remedy for governments that have grown too powerful, exceeded their constitutional authority, and worked against the will of the people. Secession is the antidote for staving off anarchy and counteracting despotism.
