...to place the concept of secession in the mainstream of political thought. Our intent is to proclaim that secession is a viable and legal right and a practical solution to contemporary problems. Secondly, we desire to build a coalition of groups seeking autonomy and independence within the current United States. Mutual support for the concept of self-determination and secession will eventually benefit all groups seeking freedom.How exactly has the project measured up in achieving this goal you might ask. Certainly much has been accomplished over all in terms of placing secession closer to mainstream thought and certainly coalitions have begun to form with the notion of mutual support. These are wonderful events, two national Secessionist Conventions have occurred since the formation of the ASP. It would be dishonest, and narcissistic, to believe that the ASP actually had much or anything to do with this progress. Our great allies in this struggle accomplished these feats, we owe much to The Middlebury Institute, The Vermont Commons, The League of The South and the Second Vermont Republic. One cannot mention the current secession movement in America without thinking of Kirkpatrick Sale, he has been the most vocal advocate for secession as a legitimate and legal resource of the people and states over the last three years. There are of course many others that have championed this cause and forced the issue into the national media. Cory Burnell was the driving force and face and voice of Christian Exodus - this forced the issue of secession into the news media. The League of The South published the Grey Book, a manifesto for Southern Independence, and groups in Hawaii and other states expanded their membership base.
I would not lose any sleep if the Scots voted to repeal the 1707 act. Independence need not end the United Kingdom: Scotland and England shared a monarch before 1707, as Britain and Canada do today. Separation need be no more radical than the partial autonomy of a dozen European countries from their neighbours. Borders were not sealed or passports cancelled under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. If eastern Europe can handle partition, so can Britain.
The phased withdrawal of the subvention would be traumatic, but it would do Scotland nothing but good to learn that public money does not grow on English trees. If economic history teaches anything, it is that huge inflows of aid rot an economy, while "unearned" wealth, as from oil, is usually wasted. The phased end of the subsidy would be thoroughly good for Scotland, not bad.
Partition is the new politics, despite being the hobgoblin of centralism. It is through partition that Ireland is booming, Slovakia reviving and the Baltic states prospering. The British government is in favour of it for everyone else, even forcing it on the former Yugoslavia and Iraq/Kurdistan. This year it welcomed Montenegro to Europe's community. By what hypocrisy do Westminster grandees ridicule Scotland's ambition?
Big federal states were fine when governments were small and unobtrusive. Today's governments are elephantine and unresponsive to local sentiment. That is why Spain, France and Italy have all opted for constitutional devolution in the past two decades, fending off separatist pressure. Anti-federalism is why European public opinion revolted against Brussels last year, and why there is no more talk of a Scandinavian union. As for size being crucial to viability, this is corporatist rubbish. If Denmark is viable, why not Scotland?
All such considerations must anyway bow before self-determination. If the Scots want to repeal the 1707 act (as some Britons want to repeal the European Union's treaties), the British cannot deny it. The story of the past quarter-century is that states enjoy no legitimacy without the consent of their territorial minorities. Britain went to war for this principle in Kosovo.
Peoples who have in the past been forced into submission and denied their right of self-determination are increasiingly re-asserting their identity and fundamental right to preserve their culture.
North American Secessionist Convention
Kirkpatrick Sale, Founder of the Middlebury Institute, wrote an excellent article in Counter Punch discussing the upcoming Secessionist Convention and Secession in general. (link via Dru)
Carol Moore discusses the convention here.
Lara DeLuz argues for Cascadian secession.
One thing you can do to support this effort is sign the Declaration of States' Rights petition. Not all secessionist agree that the concept of nation-states has any role in modern secession talk (primarily libertarian theorist) however a significant number of others do believe states have a role and retain sovereignty.
Regardless of which side of that philosophical fence you find yourself on one thing is clear - the nation-state does exist and our home states are agents of our will. A resurgence in states' rights would be a key step toward achieving a more decentralized form of government and would very possibly open the door to peaceful secession. Once that is accomplished those that advocate a nation-state model or the libertarian community based model can figure out how and if decentralization should continue in their home.
The American Secession Project plans to present the petition with signatures to the Middlebury Institute prior to the convention - as a measure of support for the cause, our small contribution.
Pass the word around, sign the petition, there are still a few days remaining.
Iraq IS a multicultural nation, which is why the Neocons have resisted partition for so long, just as the US resisted partition as a solution in that unfortunate multicultural experiment in the Balkans called Bosnia—even to this day, UN troops are the only thing preventing a resumption of inter-ethnic conflict.
An independent commission set up by Congress with the approval of President George W Bush may recommend carving up Iraq into three highly autonomous regions, according to well informed sources.
"We pay our military to fight Islamofacism, and we pay the Middle East to
fund terrorism. How we can stop terrorism and dictatorships: stop buying oil."
"Who knows? Maybe when my children are grown up and posting articles on
their own blogs, secession will be a major issue and a realistic possibility.
Maybe not, but we can hope."
David Barton, usually a soldier for correct historical representation, recently attacked the sovereignty of the States and the right of Americans to change their form of government. Although his column correctly praised some valiant men who fought courageously, it began with terrible falsehoods about American history. I wrote him a letter to set the record straight and am making it available to our website readers so that the truth may stand in opposition to lies. The letter follows.
Dear Mr. Barton,
I recently read your column entitled "The Civil War: Honoring Courageous Soldiers." I've long been a believer in the work of Wallbuilders, but that column began as an offensive piece of propaganda.
First let me say I am adamantly opposed to racism and consider slavery to be the second greatest of all American evils; abortion being our greatest national sin. Also, I'm inspired by the courage of Christian black men on both sides of the War Between the States (you chose only to highlight those of the aggressor nation). But I'm upset by your irresponsible statement that "Numerous Founding Fathers – including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, and others – had previously rejected any so-called 'right' of secession." Are you ignorant on this subject or are you purposely promoting a centralist agenda? You know historical quotes better than I, but here are several acknowledging the "right" of secession:
- "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
- "Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a government that can exist only by the sword?" Alexander Hamilton, 1788
- "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." Abraham Lincoln, in Congress January 12, 1848
- "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Declaration of Independence, 1776
So let's review. Thomas Jefferson specifically acknowledged the right of secession as late as 1816. Alexander Hamilton, the ardent centralist that he was, rebuked any government that would wield the sword in order to maintain its existence; and yet that’s exactly what the Lincoln administration did in 1861, and you praised them for it. Yet in 1848, Congressman Abraham Lincoln himself blatantly defended this "right" of secession. But to top it all off we need look no further than our nation’s birth certificate, America’s creation document, the Declaration of Independence, which unequivocally establishes the right of any people to secede. Indeed, the American colonies seceded from the British Empire.
To add insult to injury you stated, "[Daniel] Webster eloquently proved that there was no such right under the Constitution and that to secede would be an act of treason." I've seen Webster's so-called "proof" and it's nothing but retarded fiction. The entire basis for his argument was the absurd claim that the Union created the States. What alternative universe was he living in? A public school sophomore, or 3rd grade homeschooler, can identify the plain historical and undeniable fact that the States voluntarily created the Union.
Furthermore, the accusation of treason is too frequently and lightly levied today and does not pertain to an act of secession. The U.S. Constitution defines treason as, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Treason must involve "levying war," "adhering to enemies," or "giving aid and comfort" to said enemies. You said that "to secede would be an act of treason." Secession is a peaceful change in government by vote of the governed people. It does not involve "war" or "enemies" of any sort. As proof, seven States peacefully seceded by February of 1861 and formed another union, a separate sovereign nation. They were independent in this union for two months before attempting to expel a belligerent foreign nation from their soil (sounds very similar to some of the reasons the U.S. went to war with Britain in 1812) at Fort Sumter. This foreign nation, the United States, then chose to raise an army and invade the C.S.A. in an attempt to conquer and subjugate it. It was the U.S. that sought a war of aggression against an otherwise peaceful and independent nation to the South. The point being that secession itself is peaceful and therefore cannot possibly be treasonous. Force is never used to secede, but is always used to conquer (prevent secession) after the people seceding have peacefully spoken. In other words, force is always initiated by the opponents of self-determination, not the secessionists.
Lastly, I'll give you the exact texts that declare the rights of States to leave the union:
- "The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will;" Virginia ratification of the U.S. Constitution, June 26, 1788, accepted as lawful ratification
- "That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People [of New York], whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness;" New York ratification of the U.S. Constitution, July 26, 1788, accepted as lawful ratification
- "That the powers of government may be resumed by the people [of Rhode Island], whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:" Rhode Island ratification of the U.S. Constitution, May 29, 1790, accepted as lawful ratification
- "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." 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Again, let's review. Virginia, New York and Rhode Island (two northern States by the way) all reserved the right to leave the union when they ratified the U.S. Constitution. Their ratifications were accepted in entirety. And to further solidify the right of a State to leave the union we can point directly to text in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution does not delegate power to the general government to coerce a member of the union with force of arms. Furthermore, the Constitution does not prohibit a State from leaving the union. Therefore, the right to leave the union is reserved to the States, and the federal government cannot invade it with troops to prevent such exercise of sovereignty.
There are a number of debatable subjects regarding American government. However, the right of a State to leave this voluntary union is not one of them. The existence of this "right" is indisputable. Every historical event in our nation's founding points to this truth.
Sincerely,
Cory R. Burnell, MBA
