Mayors, City Council Members and Governors vow not to cooperate with Federal authorities in enforcing Federal immigration law. This is a headline drawn from one of many media sources. States and cities vowing not to follow national laws isn’t new. There was the whiskey rebellion in 1791 about taxing whiskey and other limited scope attempts at nullifying federal laws claiming they didn’t apply in this state, city, county, or other geographical regions but perhaps the two best known and most consequential were the 1828-32 Nullification Crisis and the 1860 acts of Secession.
In both these cases the state of South Carolina, which did considerable overseas trading with Great Britain and France took a stand that they would nullify the 1828 federal tariff rates passed by Congress and in 1860 they took exception to the proposed Morrill tariff act which would be passed and signed into law by outgoing President Buchanan just months before Lincoln’s inauguration and which would increase traiffs on incoming goods by seventy percent.
There were a number of apologists on either side of these events claiming that tariffs had little to nothing to do with the issue and that the real issue was slavery, while others pointed to the complete economic subjugation of the Southern agrarian economy to the banking interests and industry of the North if the tariffs stood. South Carolina and other Southern states could not economically purchase agricultural tools and other imports from Europe being forced to pay the prices demanded by the Northern producers. The Southern states, with South Carolina in the lead, thought the tariffs were nothing sort of economic war being waged by the Northern states upon the South. Andrew Jackson, during the Nullification Crisis of 1828-32 asked Congress for permission to raise an Army to force South Carolina to comply with the law. He would have declared a national emergency and put South Carolina under martial law. It was a precedent that was not lost on Lincoln when he demanded 75,000 troops from each state to force the rebellious states back into the Union. It was an act that saved the Union but at a cost that is still being paid off today.
Then do these cities, counties, states; mayors, governors and city councils intend to secede from the United States or just nullify the Federal law? A number of U.S. Supreme Court cases have resulted in rulings that secession and/or nullification is not an option. Texas Vs White, SC 1869 being the first and most prominent. The Supreme Court held there is no Constitutional provision for secession of a state once it joins the union and that no individual state or group of states could therefore secede from said union. Further it held that even while “in secession under confederate governments” or “during reconstruction while under military occupation,” those states were members of the Union known as the United States of America and subject to the laws thereof.”
With this ruling no city, county or state has the ability to nullify Federal law. Thus, all the strutting, chest beating and loud voices by the politicians of those instrumentalities will be like voices crying in the wilderness. Nay, they will be like the voices of criminals bewailing their innocence while evidence is being shown on television of their guilt.
Point of this essay is, Progressive (collectivist) politicians will be knowingly violating the law if they do not cooperate with Federal authorities in apprehending unlawful migrants who have violated Federal law. Those who have been processed and given hearing dates but have criminal records either in their native country or while in the U.S. will also be apprehended and, if necessary, deported. Not to cooperate will subject such politicians to charges of interfering with a Federal investigation and other charges which will reach felony status and possibly subject those individuals to both indictment and incarceration.
I do not revel in this situation and I know there is a celebrated history in this country of civil disobedience to Federal and local law, but I suggest, in this situation, there is indeed, a threat to public safety and such resistance aids and abets known criminals and therefore is itself unlawful. As for law enforcement authorities subject to command by higher political authority all I can say is that if you are ordered to not cooperate with Federal authorities and you use the excuse “I’m only following orders” then you have violated the oath you took upon accession to your position, for while there is a sentence about obeying the orders of those lawfully appointed over you, there is also a plethora of court decisions that you cannot be ordered to break the law nor enforce an unlawful order. And while we are on this subject let me say that if you were a uniformed commander during the Afghanistan debacle and you’re using the old “just following orders” defense, shame on you. Your loyalty should have been to your troops and if the orders you were given were wrong and you knew it you should have said so and if ignored you should have publicly resigned your commissions. Since you didn’t you are complicit in the disaster and should bear responsibility just as the government officials calling for secession from the unity of Federal law and nullification of those laws should suffer the consequences of such. As we have always said and hope that it will always be true: Speech in this country is free, you may say whatever you like but you must also remember, speech has consequences almost as much as deeds.
And here you must remember that I am a dyed in the wool (or better said cotton) Southerner and I believe that secession was a legitimate option in 1860. I believe that the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence were just as applicable for the Southern States in 1860 as they were for the British Colonies in 1776. My grandfathers of yore fought in the revolution just as my great grandfather fought in the War of Secession and my great-great grandfather died in that war, neither of them being slave owners. Yet, I have accepted that the law of the nation has decreed secession is not an option nor is nullification, and that elections decide what course as a nation we will follow.
Those who preach resistance must ask themselves; If one person dies at the hands of a criminal, who otherwise would have been apprehended save for my dereliction of duty to the people, will I be culpable? The answer is: morally, undoubtable, lawfully, yes but difficult to prove. You ask about compassion. What about compassion to your primary constituents? What about the services going to support unlawful migrants that otherwise would have been used to lessen the difficulties of the more economically challenged of your constituents or the education of their children.
I am no Simon Legree (how many of you know who Simon Legree is? Did you know that he was born and raised in the North?) But just as the United States cannot be the World’s policeman, neither can it be the World’s repository of humanity. Natural resources have limits, as do the pocketbooks of the lower, middle and upper middle classes of American workers upon who falls the financial support for these tens of millions of people.
So, to the politicians professing secession and nullification I, as an individual and a member of those aforementioned tax-paying classes, say: If you disagree, resign your position and get a talk show, or do as I have and start your own blog. Otherwise do not interfere in what the majority of the people voted for. (apologies to English grammarians and particularly Mrs. Arnold, for ending sentences with prepositions.)