Sam Francis has written his last column, dying yesterday from complications from heart surgery. Sam was a major player in the conservative movement when it was, well, actually a conservative movement. He served as a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, legislative assistant to Senator John East, and as an editor for the Washington Times until ousted in a row over political correctness. The stated aim of Sam's conservative tormenters, if I'm not mistaken, was "to run Sam Francis out of polite society."

Drawn less to his ideas than to his status as an outlaw for sanctimonious beltway types, I invited Sam to speak at several conferences I organized as executive director of Accuracy in Academia. In a panel on the diversity within the conservative movement, for instance, Sam represented paleoconservatism, Jonah Goldberg represented neoconservatism, Lori Waters represented religious conservatives, and James Bovard represented the libertarians. A good conversation, but to my disappointment the participants were too polite to draw blood. On other occassions, Sam defended secession. This spilled over into an ongoing discussion among Conservative University's students and faculty, which culminated in a famous debate between Joe Sobran and Dinesh D'Souza. I last saw Sam a year or so ago, and I was shocked at how much weight he had lost. He also seemed uncharacteristically cheerful. In the tradition of Whittaker Chambers and G.K. Chesterton, Sam had been a conservative of great girth. This probably stands as a reason why he left this world in his late fifties.

A partisan of the Old South, an old line Washingtonian on foreign policy, and a pioneer on the issue of controlling America's borders, perhaps Sam Francis was destined not to make the journey into the mainstream with the conservative movement. Sam Francis, rest in peace.

I was introduced to Sam Francis at the 2001 Conservative University and it was a major influence. To be honest, I found what he (as well as Joe Sobran and Reggie Jones) had to say quite interesting, and from there I began to move more towards a paleo/traditionalist whatever you want to call it bent.

May he rest in peace.

He was true blue, requiescat in pace.

The Sobran/D'Souza debate is entertaining. Thanks for posting that link.

Thanks, Reader. The inarticulate voice introducing the debaters is mine. For any small "r" readers who have real audio, listening to the D'Souza/Sobran debate is definitely worth it.

R.I.P. Sam Francis.

The debate between Sobran and D'Souza is as good on audio as it was live. D'Souza (i.e., Jaffa) wins in both.

Dr. Francis was a real one-of-a-kind sort of commentator - from his denunciations of big government to his criticisms of American immigration policy. A type of gentleman who held steadfast to principle in the face of all sorts of self-righteous hand wringing on both the Left and the establishment Right.

He will be sorely missed. RIP, Sam Francis.

I remember listening to the Sobran/D'souza debate and I was anticipating a Sobran victory because, well....I think the guy is brilliant.

But D'Souza won the debate.

Rob and Brad are dead wrong. D'Souza has more pathos-based rhetorical ability, but Sobran wins both in logos and ethos: (1) in logical/legal ana-lysis of the issues, and (2) by being more level-headed and less sentimental. Really, unless you're a wishful thinker, Sobran wins no contest.

The secessionist constitutional argument is based on the 10th amendment to the Constiution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This, it is claimed, implicitly grants secession as a "power" to the States. Secession, however, is not a "power" of States or people at all, i.e., if all "powers" were enumerated, secession would not be among them. It is a different animal.

This position is supported by Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union...." The Constiution makes allowances for the addition of States, but not the subtraction of States.

Only federal powers must be enumerated; state powers are implicit unless explicitly denied in the constitution. That is the meaning of the 9th and 10th amendments.

Thus, the power to admit new states is enumerated, because it a power of the union, while the power of secession needn't be enumerated because it is not a power of the federeal union but of the people of the states. Really quite simple. Brad's argument: destroyed.

Brad offers no reason whatever to support his odd claim that secession doesn't count as a 'power', and what is asserted without reason can be denied without reason. Oh, but I also have a reason to deny this claim: The states are independently valid political organizations. The power to enter and leave inter-statal organizations is a power generally possessed by states. So unless denied explicitly in the constitution, that power stands.

The destruction of my argument has been greatly exaggerated.

"The states are independently valid political organizations." States have limited sovereignty under the governance of the Union. Thus, Article 6: "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

"The power to enter and leave inter-statal organizations is a power generally possessed by states." Incorrect. Article 2, Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.... No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, ... or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

The powers of the states are those powers of all states, unless expressly limited by the constitution. The supremacy clause is irrelevant here, because certainly the supemacy of the federal government is limited, covering only the enumerated powers granted to the union or taken away from the states. This is stated by 9 and 10. To deny this is to deny federalism entirely. Is there a conflict between the supremacy clause and the 9th and 10th amendments? If there is, the amendments take precedence. Thus, the supremacy clause is irrelevent to how we read 9 and 10.

Regarding the limitations in Article 2 Section 10 of the states' powers to enter and leave inter-statal organizations, this limitation extends only so far as the enumeration. That is, the enumeration does not destroy this right entirely. And the enumeration here does not list leaving the federation as one of the rights denied to the states.

Thus, Brad's entire interpretation of these quotes from the constitution relies on denying the principle of enumeration explained in the 9th and 10th amendments.

"This, it is claimed, implicitly grants secession as a 'power' to the States. Secession, however, is not a 'power' of States or people at all, i.e., if all 'powers' were enumerated, secession would not be among them."

Secession is not a power of the states or the people?

This revelation would certainly have been news to Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence (which was, by the way, essentially a declaration of secession from the British Empire). In Jefferson's First Inaugural he stated plainly:

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Following an attempt by the New England Federalists to secede, Jefferson wrote, "[i]f any state in the Union declare[s] that it prefers separation [...] to a continuance in union [...] I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'"

Now Jefferson may not have viewed secession as a prudent course of action, but he never denied the right existed.

John Quincy Adams was a strong supporter of the Union, but he never denied a right to secession either, defending the right in an 1839 speech:

"The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other [...] the bands of political associations will not hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint."

Alexis de Tocquville recognized the right in Democracy in America:

"If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaing its claims directly either by force or right."

I could go on with the quotes, but I'll stop here.

The point is that if you take the position that the Constitution should be interpreted on the basis of original intent, it is extremely difficult to deny a right of secession. Unless Brad, like the judicial activists, doesn't believe it should be.

Moreoever, the idea that the sovereign states would knowingly join in some sort of eternal union doesn't make much historical sense. Lest we forget about the large number of anti-Federalists in America during the time of the Constitutional Convention. If the understanding at the time of the ratification of the Constitution was that the states were entering into an eternal union, wouldn't it be echoed in the writings of the anti-Federalists?

The big government mess we have today is a direct consequence of Lincoln's longing for strengtheninrer ntralized authority by any means necessary.

As the 9th Amendment concerns rights retained by the people, and not the States, it is irrelevant to the question of secession.

The constitutinal argument for secession depends solely on an interpretation of the 10th Amendment. Specifically, the word "power" as it applies to a State must include the "power" to secede.

So what is a "power" here? It certainly is not "power" in the unrestricted sense of a capacity. There are many such "powers," e.g., the power of sight, that cannot be delegated to States. Thus, "power" must mean "power proper to a State." So what are those?

The 10th Amendment narrows the definition: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively...." The kind of "power" is indicated by what sorts of activities are delegated and prohibited by the Constitution itself. So what are those?

Article 10 of Section 1 provides a list. These are all activities proper to states. Take England, for example. Any of the activities prohibited in Article 10 are proper activities of the English state. What about secession? Is it a proper activity of, e.g., the English state. What sense could be given to the "power" of the English state to secede? Or any other state for that matter? Secede from what?

The difference between granting a state the "power" of sight and that of secession is merely one of degree.

Who is Jefferson to interpret the Constitution? He was in France at the time. Who, for that matter, are the individual Framers to interpret the Constitution? Original Intention is erroneous on a number of levels. The Framers did not all agree on the correct interpretation, and even if they did, they have no Constitutional authority as intepreters. And if not the Framers, how much less de Tocquville.

Original Intention is as mistaken as judicial activism. The correct position is to let the document speak for itself, i.e., strict constructionalism.

Constuctionalism or Constructionism? I think the later, but its been a long day.

The Civil War is over guys - the good guys won.

Don't blame Lincoln for big government, that prize goes to FDR - and the people.

D'Souza just sounds like a neocon doesn't he? The high-pitched voice, the overwraught teary rhetoric, the false patriotism. Neocons are sissies. D'Souza employs standard sophistical debate techniques for demagoguing the ignorant but the manly and sonorous Sobran wins the argument hands down.

The Jaffa-Straussian-pluralist-modernist-statist crowd's whole argument boils down to "slavery is gravely evil . . . the South would NEVER have given up slavery on its own . . . the Civil War made America the modern pluralist dominant nation that it is . . . Modern pluralist dominant America is fantastic; therefore, Lincoln was a great man and the War of Northern Aggression was just."

The first premise is obviously true but a non sequitur, the second premise is both a non sequitur b/c unprovable but also exceedingly unlikely, the third is true but lamentable, the fourth is an opinion which is completely debatable (particularly as the destruction of state's rights led directly to the holocaust of abortion killing millions more Americans than were ever enslaved), and so the conclusion simply does not follow.

The neocons are always content with power politics, that is, consequentialist Machiavellianism.

Brad, why would secession not have been one of the ennumerated rights? How is it a different beast? It was always accepted as being a right of the states.

I have another question Brad. Where does/did sovereignty lie?

If you agree with Lincoln then sovereignty lies with the "people." That makes you a democrat and I would be surprised at that since you normally maintain an elitist anti-democratic stance.

If you agree with the south the sovereignty lies/laid in the states and that would make you a classical republican, which I consider myself to be.

I am saddened to hear of Sam Francis passing. Having attended many conferences and public speaking events put on by groups like Young America's Foundation, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Independent Women's Forum, and LI's CLP, I began to see the same speakers over and over again. Maybe I saw more than the average student or campus activist, and not to take anything away from what these important organizations do, but the point is that Accuracy In Academia's conferences and the annual "Conservative University" programs put on by AIA were the most unique in that they exposed students to some new speakers that they probably had never seen, or even heard of before.

Sam Francis was one for me, and I was appreciative to AIA for that. He was such an interesting and unique figure. After learning more about Francis and his career and his dismissal from the Washington Times over the PC flap, it made me more sympathetic to him for what I perceived to be a detached and even melancholy demeanor. (And while some of his colleagues at Chronicles mentioned in their memoriam pieces that he was one who never invoked his "feelings" into his work, I am still nonetheless curious to know what those might be considering such a "political" flap caused him his perch at the Washington Times; a significant one for a writer. Some say he never got over M.E. Bradford being passed over for NEH Chair, but I wonder what he felt about being canned from the most Conservative newspaper in the country.

But anyways . . . AIA's conferences exposed speakers like Sam Francis to new audiences and provided them with opportunities and avenues. I think it’s safe to say that not many other collegiate organizations were inviting Joe Sobran, Sam Francis, James Bovard, Paul Gottfried, and even Jonah Goldberg at the time when I saw him at an AIA event considering how popular and sought after he is now. Which, in the case of Sam Francis, I think that may have been the true. On top of that, the issues and topics discussed at AIA events were a little more inventive and unique compared to what was out there; that’s evident from the discussion sparked on this comments thread on the D’Souza-Sobran debate on Lincoln.

In any case, I was glad to have been able to see him speak a handful of times. I tried to talk to him once before a talk he was about to give. A lot of speakers interact with audience and students beforehand, but I never saw him do that. He looked uncomfortable and he was about to sit on the panel with Goldberg, Lori Cole, and Boavard. It was like that scene out of Dumb and Dumber when Jim Carey says to the guys at the gas station, “Big Gulps, huh? . . . Well, alrighty then!” He was getting food and I said, “hey so you’re going to go up there and represent the good guys, huh?” . . . he just said, “oh I don’t know. I guess.” He was going to represent the paleo-Conservative perspective with Goldberg arguing the “neo-Conservative” view, Lori Cole the “Religious Conservative” and Bovard the “Libertarian.” Boavard and Cole were the only two that seemed comfortable with their labels because Goldberg considered himself just plain “C” “Conservative” but played along, and Francis accepted his tag, but new that paleo-conservative was some sort of slur at one point. Boavard also seemed to be the only one to come in there with an agenda and clear definition of the message he wanted to get across, which was great because I think he had a book out at the time. Anyways, and long story short everyone on the panel was pretty subdued and it was pretty tame until the topic turned to pornography, regulation, and censorship. No one on the panel really cared except Lori Cole (now Lori Waters) who was getting all haughty about it and everything. Everyone seemed to want to move on, until it was Francis’ turn, and he said something to the effect of, “ok, it’s like this. Religious Conservatives are right to want to regulate it. Paleo Conservatives are for regulating it as well. The only difference though between the Religious Conservatives and Paleo Conservatives is that Religious Conservatives say they are for regulating pornography and don’t like pornography, but the Paleo Conservatives just say they are for regulating pornography, but we like it and probably look at it.” The whole place burst into hysterics, with Cole getting extremely uncomfortable, which was even more awkward do to the fact that she is a really hot chick sitting up there with 3 really strange looking dudes. Example?
Here’s James Bovard: http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/james-bovard_copy.jpg

Anyways, I’m not sharing the Francis anecdote to make him look like a weirdo or anything. He picked up on the audience attention waning and woke them up with something funny. Maybe somewhere in that there was a point that had more philosophical meaning. I dunno, it was funny though. And if there are any Phyllis Schlafly and Lori (Cole) Waters fans out there who are offended, I don’t care, I’m just telling the story, I think they are both great.

And Francis was more than just a columnist, as his resume points to his abilities as a policy expert and political aide. I will be sure to pick up his book on Burnham. But I enjoyed reading his articles on the web, and always appreciated seeing him speak. R.I.P. Sam Francis.

I take back my first question Brad about why secession is not a power of the states, you gave a very clever explanation of your position above which I missed when first reading these posts. I have to think about your argument some more.

My second question about sovereignty remains since it is at the heart of modern politics.

Excellent post, Finbar.

Brad: I read your b izarro reading of the 9th and 10th. It is the most retarded constitutional interpretation I've heard since, well, Roe v. Wade.

Yes, the rights in the 9th are retained by the 'people' -- in the same sense that the ratification of the constitution is done by the people, and just as the constitution starts by saying "we the people of the united stateS." The secession votes weren't done, and couldn't be done by the state governments; they were done in constitutional conventions. So if you say the con conventions of the states aren't "the people" of the states, then "the people" didn't ratify the constitution either.

Your reading of 'power' in the 10th is so disgustingly b izarre and full of wishful-thinking, it is not worth addressing. But I'll give it a shot: (1) It makes perfect sense to say that the English state retains, as a right, the power of secession. The English state retains the right of secession from any treaty or international organization or federation it joins, unless it expressly gives up this right as part of the treaty. (2) The states have powers that are not delegated by the constituion, and in fact couldn't be. If you don't get this, you don't get the constitution or federalism at all. For example, the power of ratifying the constitution belongs to the states and this power can't depend on the delegation of the constitution. (Secession is a directly parallel to ratification.)

Your argument again boils down to denying the independent validity of the states as organized political communities. They are not the type of parts that depend on the whole to exist. The whole point of the 10th is to say that the powers of the states are not dependent upon the constitution; but your reading denies all powers to states unless they have or _could have_(?) been delegated. Really, really weird.

On the Lincoln debate: from what I heard, Sobran is winning the debate on correctness. D'Souza on vision. D'Souza does not do much to offset the claim that the states had a right to secede---so in once sense he doesn't address that question except to parrot Lincoln saying that the South was being hypocritcal.

I have long felt that 1) the Articles of Confederation gave states the right to secede, 2) the new document questionably moved aside the old agreement, 3) states ratified the Cons with the stipulation that they can secede---thus indicating a tolerance of secession in everyone who accepted such a ratification, 4) The BoR was needed to assure states that they retained rights in the new union. As a result, 1) the South was legally right, 2) Lincoln invaded a separate country, legally seceded from the union, 3) America was saved from a balkanization, and 4) the South was saved from forming a highly hypocritcal union.

We have to remember that in the revolution, Britain was legally right, but America was morally right.

We cons typically rely the disputedness of slavery in the original constituion to provide for the idea that our morals weren't entirely hypocritical from the beginning. The Confederacy would have had no such basis to claim to be for "freedom". The Confederacy cannot be defended with the same ideological grounds as the union.

We fear the ideological dissonance that would com from defending the orginal compromise saying: "Yeah so! That's what they did. That was the law. They were allowed to make slaves 1/5 a person, 3/5 a person, or 8/5 a person, because everything was fair when you throw off the laws of the old country and have no established law of your own!"

Why is that? Because although it is likely true, it is not good. We might just have well have said, well the crown was within its rights to leverage those tea taxes they did. I would guess that a number of loyalists might have felt the same way: "Well, yeah, they're bad. But the crown is within its rights. If we start...". But we killed them, and ran them out in the revolution.

There are some reasons to go against the rules as they stand. That, I believe, is American.