One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution (Paperback)

by Robert, F. Hawes (Author)
Key Phrases: consolidated national government, seceded states, constitutional compact, South Carolina, Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Product 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.

From the Publisher
"The federal government's growth of power at the expense of individuals and natural human communities has been the trend so long now that it has seemed inevitable. But thoughtful people of late have been rediscovering the true decentralist origins of the United States. Robert Hawes states the case beautifully for the forgotten decentralist tradition - which may be our only hope for the preservation of freedom."

- Clyde Wilson, professor of history, University of South Carolina

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 376 pages
• Publisher: Fultus Corporation (May 30, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1596820918
• ISBN-13: 978-1596820913
• Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.9 out of 5 stars See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #429,522 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

27 of 27 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An Accurate Inquiry into the Constitutionality of Secession, August 17, 2007

By	Ryan Setliff "InternetPundit.com" (VA, USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

~One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution~ is a fascinating overview of the constitutional issue of secession in the context of American constitutionalism. Hawes offers a sweeping point-by-point refutation of the unitary nationalist doctrines of Joseph Story and Daniel Webster. He also makes light of Webster's conflicting stance as he affirmed the right of state interposition at the Hartford Convention, and later reaffirmed the compact theory of the Union tacitly at his Capon Springs speech in the 1850s. Hawes offers an astute defense of the doctrine of secession, which was affirmed in express terms by three states in the state ratifying conventions of the late 1780s. In the most express terms, the founding fathers denied that the general government of the United States had any right whatsoever to coerce a sovereign state. Such naked coercion was diametrically opposed to the principle of rule by consent of the governed.

What this book does is manifest the illegality of the United States government under the Lincoln administration in the 1860s. Prior to Lincoln's election, the general government controlled by northern majority aggravated the continuance of the Union by pursuing a course of irrational tax policy which compelled southern secession. The Union was not founded on the principles of the inviolability of the national sovereignty, but on popular sovereignty and rule by the consent of the governed. Nearly two centuries after the adoption of the Constitution, the United States' fortieth President Ronald Reagan could proclaim, "[T]he Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government." That probably explains why Reagan said he would belonged to the other party had he lived in the mid-nineteenth century too.

This book is a nice supplement to Thomas DiLorenzo's book, and much more meticulous in examining the constitutional issues behind the secession issue. It offers a two-pronged defense of the actions of the Confederate States of America and a defense of the constitutional doctrine of state secession in general. I highly recommend it.

21 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A good study of the Constitutional Law, January 10, 2008

By	Bruce Cottingham "petitjean" (Arkansas) - See all my reviews

I was required to memorize the Constitution of the United States as well as that of the state of Illinois and the State of Arkansas before graduating eighth grade. This was a bit of a refresher course for me, though I keep a copy of the Constitution in my desk. I had always maintained that nothing in the Constitution forbade secession and when a student in Illinois, was called "secesh" for my simple and irrefutable argument. My family were Unionist Arkansans and Georgians but were, upon reflection mistaken. Lincoln trashed the Constitution as has every administration since that time. The South had the legal right to secede and exercised that right. The Confederacy offered to compensate the US government for improvements on their territory but were never heard by President Lincoln. It seems quite apparent that Lincoln was the direct cause of the worst war in US history and contrary to my earlier belief was more sinner than saint in the business. The first two thirds of the book makes a Constitutional case for secession as a right reserved to the states. I simply can't argue with that and can't find any provision in the Constitution declaring the Union eternal or secession illegal. It seems that the states formed the Union and had every right to depart from it.

The last part of the book deals with violations of the Constitution on the part of President Lincoln. There was not only inconsistency and violation of the Constitution which Lincoln had sworn to uphold but there was the logical inconsistency of saying that states never left the Union but in some sense must be readmitted to the Union. If they never left, how would they be required to be readmitted? It goes downhill from there to all sorts of violations of the civil rights of people both North and South.

Unfortunately, such has been the pattern of the federal government ever since. Perhaps it was right to free the slaves. I would ask was it right to violate the rights and therefore enslave all Americans as a result of the illegal suspension of habeas corpus or the other violence done to the rule of law by Lincoln? My perception of the man has changed from almost hero-worship to revulsion.

I have thoroughly checked references in this book before commenting. I even questioned the quality of the references and found all but one to be reliable. The one I could not verify was due to lack of time.

28 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Constitutional and modern case for Secesson., June 16, 2006

By	Joseph Swyers (Leadville, CO USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Hawes shares quotes from the founders: Jefferson, Madison, and many others. Included are Congressional Records going back to secessionist feeling in the 1830's, speeches from Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun and Lincoln's speeches upholding the right of secession. The book documents the historical evidence supporting States rights to secession. Saving the Union was not seriously considered by New England in 1814 when it wanted to secede.
The book refutes that the war was over slavery. Lincoln is quoted speaking in favor of slavery. Slavery was Constitutional. The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to Northern slaves, not to slaves in Confederate territory. A Constitutional amendment voluntarily ratified by the States was not tried. Instead Lincoln waged war and then forced Southern states to ratify that amendment.
The book documents how Lincoln turned from swearing to uphold the Constitution to subverting it -- such as ordering Northern newspapers against the war to be closed -- with force. The book explains how Lincoln usurped Congressional power: declaring war, calling out the militia and suspending the writ of habeas corpus even for civilians. Lincoln also ordered the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -- all to "save the union."
Confederate ambassadors seeking peace before the war were refused an audience with Lincoln. Meanwhile Union troops threatened South Carolina's harbor with their actions at Fort Sumter. Lincoln's provocation to get South Carolina to fire the first shot is documented.
The book explains how the war was waged against civilians: homes burned, crops and livestock destroyed, fields salted, cities leveled, children murdered and women raped. All this upon the orders of union generals who, in turn, were supported by Lincoln. The South was conquered and occupied. Votes by Southern States are shown to be not by Southerners but by Northern puppets and carpetbaggers put in charge of Southern State governments.
This book is a powerful, well documented, heavily researched study of the real reasons for the War of North against the South. It also makes a strong Constitutional case in favor of near future secession of any group of States such as the West Coast, the Northeast, or Midwest -- all have which have talked of secession in recent years.