by Kevin Clauson
This is an excellent piece for those of the Christian persuasion that have concerns over the righteousness of thoughts on secession.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Sunday, June 20, 2004
Who Are We Anyway? Samuel Huntington on American Identity
Bloomberg.com: U.S.: "In his new book, ``Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity'' (Simon and Schuster, 428 pages, $27), Huntington turns his sights inward. He sees a rich and powerful nation potentially undermined from within. There are, Huntington argues, two main reasons for this. One is the ideology of multiculturalism. The other is the gradual withering of allegiance to the ``core values'' that, since the time of the Founders, defined America. "
A seismic change
Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | A seismic change: "With only a couple of days to go to the election, it is clear that the United Kingdom Independence party will make gains that go far beyond anything we expected a couple of months ago. It also seems likely that in many regions, a majority of voters will cast their votes for Eurosceptic parties. This is an historic development, a seismic change. To quote Prescott's phrase, the tectonic plates are moving."
States' Rights rises in Europe
States' Rights rises in Europe
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Two new papers
Be sure to view Secessionist No. 9 by Anonymous Professor. This paper tackles the issue of taking Secession seriously.
Also Secessionist No. 10 by Dr. Thomas E. Woods is now posted.
Two very good essays.
View the complete index of papers
Also Secessionist No. 10 by Dr. Thomas E. Woods is now posted.
Two very good essays.
View the complete index of papers
Monday, June 14, 2004
Secessionist No. 8
The law of free association is a crucially important implication of the rights of private property (in physical material, and in our own bodies). For if we cannot freely associate with others on a mutually voluntary basis, our property rights are to that extent abrogated.
The most serious denigration of property rights in persons and thus in free association is, of course, murder. No one favors such behavior (killing in self-defense is entirely another matter) so this is not at all controversial. Another grave violation of the libertarian code of non-aggression against non-aggressors and their property is slavery (or kidnapping, which is short-term slavery). This, too, is non-debatable.
There are, however, many institutions, actually favored by "respectable" commentators on political economy, which partake of slavery to a greater or lesser extent. All laws against "discrimination" are violations of free association, because they force two parties, one of which who wishes to have nothing to do with the other, to interact despite these desires. When a store owner is forced to sell to customers against his will, and is not free to snub any of them on whatever racial, sexual, religious etc., basis he chooses, he is to that extent a slave. The difference between such laws and outright slavery is only one of degree: in each case, the essence of the matter is that people are forced to associate with others against their will. Another instance is forced unionism. Our labor legislation forces employers to "bargain fairly" with those they would prefer to avoid entirely.
Perhaps the most important violation of the law of free association, at least on pragmatic grounds, occurs in the political realm. This is crucial, because other infringements, such as affirmative action, union legislation, etc., stem from political sources. If freedom of association in the realm of affirmative action is the right to discriminate, and in the field of labor the right to hire a "scab," then when it comes to the political realm, it is the right to secession.
Those who are not free to secede are in effect (partial) slaves to a king, or to a tyrannous majority under democracy. Nor is secession to be confused with the mere right to emigrate, even when one is allowed to take one’s property out of the country. Secession means the right to stay put, on one’s own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one’s own account.
Why should the man who wishes to secede from a government have to vacate his land? For surely, even under the philosophy of statists, it was the people who came first. Government, in the minarchist libertarian view, was only instituted by them in order to achieve certain ends, later, after they had come to own their property. That is to say, the state is a creation of the people, not the people a creation of the state. But if a government was once invited in, to provide certain services, then it can also be uninvited, or invited to leave, or expelled. To deny this is to assert that the government was there first, before there were even any people. But how can this be? Government is not a disembodied entity, composed of creatures other than human (although, perhaps, there may be legitimate doubts about this on the part of some); rather, it is comprised of flesh and blood, albeit for the most part evil, people.
Given, then, that secession is a human right, part and parcel of the right to free association, how can we characterize those who oppose this? Who would use force and violence, of all things, in order to compel unwilling participants to join in, or to remain part of, a political entity they wish to have nothing to do with? Why, as would be slave holders, of a sort. Certainly not as libertarians.
Thus, it is nothing short of amazing to find that there are commentators who actually call themselves libertarians and yet oppose the rights of secession. Were these people to remain consistent with this view, they would be logically forced, also, to give their imprimatur to union and anti-discrimination legislation, surely a reductio ad absurdum.
One of the grounds upon which so called libertarians oppose secession, the right to be left alone politically speaking, is that those who wish to secede might be less than fully perfect in various ways. For example, the Confederate states practiced slavery, and this is certainly incompatible with libertarian law.
Let us assume away the awkward historical fact that this "curious institution" was operational in the north, too. After all, we are making a philosophical point, not a historical one. Let us posit, arguendo, that the north came to its confrontation with the south with totally clean hands as far as slave holding, or, indeed, any other deviation from libertarian law is concerned (e.g., tariffs, high taxes, etc.). That is, the north is a totally libertarian entity, the south a morally evil one. (I know, I know; I’m only talking here for argument’s sake).
Would that premise be a valid rationale for the north to in effect enslave the south, and thus violate its rights of free association? It would not.
If it was proper for the north to hold the south captive against its will, the implication is that India was not warranted in seceding from England in 1948 since the latter practiced suttee; that African countries were not justified in departing from their European colonial masters since they practiced clitorectemy; that it would not have been permissible for the Jews in 1930s Germany to have left the jurisdiction of the Nazis since they, too, were doubtless imperfect in some way or other.
Let us move from the realm of the macro to that of the micro. If groups of imperfect people are not justified in seceding from groups of perfect people, what about individuals? If we rigorously apply the principle on the basis of which confederate secession was opposed to the individual level, again we run into all sorts of counterintuitive results.
For example, divorce. Under this "logic" no spouse could leave another if the departing one were less than perfect.
In the words of Clyde Wilson: "If the right of secession of one part of a political community is subject to the moral approval of another, then there really is no right of secession." Either you have the right of free association and secession, or you do not.
If secession is always and everywhere justified, what, then, is the proper libertarian response to the existence of suttee, slavery, clitorectomy, etc., in other countries (e.g., in seceding territories)?
Under libertarian free market anarchism, it would be permissible for a private defense agency to invade private property if a crime is occurring there (if a mistake is made in this regard, libertarian punishment theory, the topic for another day, kicks into gear; in this type of society, even the police are not above the law). If A is about to murder B in A’s house, A may not properly object when the police kick in his door to forestall this dastardly act. Thus, free market competing defense agencies could have gone into the south to free the slaves, but once this was done, given that there were no other crimes occurring, and that due punishment was meted out to the evil-doers, that would be the end of the matter. There would be no further interaction. The south (or India in the case of suttee) would then be allowed to go its own way.
Under limited government libertarianism, the government of the north would take no steps to rid the sovereign Confederacy of its slavery (or India of its suttee). The purpose of the state in this philosophy is to protect its own citizens. Period. And, on the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned.
However, even under these assumptions individual abolitionists would be perfectly free, and, indeed, justified, in going in to the Confederacy, guns in hand, with the intention of ridding the south of this evil institution of slavery. But if things went poorly for them, they could not then scurry back to the north, tails between their legs, hiding behind their mama’s skirts, because that would necessarily bring in the northern government into the fray. It would violate the non-invasion (except in self-defense) provision of limited government libertarianism, or minarchism.
There would be no "reconstruction." There would be no "indivisible" U.S.A. Rather, there would now be two totally separate countries. The U.S.A. and the Confederacy. Again, once slavery was ended, given that there were no other crimes occurring, and that due punishment was meted out to the evil-doers, that would be the end of the matter. On the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned.
by Walter Block July 9, 2002
[send him mail]
Dr. Walter Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
College of Business Administration
Loyola University New Orleans
Included in the collection of Secessionist Papers with the express consent and support of the author
The most serious denigration of property rights in persons and thus in free association is, of course, murder. No one favors such behavior (killing in self-defense is entirely another matter) so this is not at all controversial. Another grave violation of the libertarian code of non-aggression against non-aggressors and their property is slavery (or kidnapping, which is short-term slavery). This, too, is non-debatable.
There are, however, many institutions, actually favored by "respectable" commentators on political economy, which partake of slavery to a greater or lesser extent. All laws against "discrimination" are violations of free association, because they force two parties, one of which who wishes to have nothing to do with the other, to interact despite these desires. When a store owner is forced to sell to customers against his will, and is not free to snub any of them on whatever racial, sexual, religious etc., basis he chooses, he is to that extent a slave. The difference between such laws and outright slavery is only one of degree: in each case, the essence of the matter is that people are forced to associate with others against their will. Another instance is forced unionism. Our labor legislation forces employers to "bargain fairly" with those they would prefer to avoid entirely.
Perhaps the most important violation of the law of free association, at least on pragmatic grounds, occurs in the political realm. This is crucial, because other infringements, such as affirmative action, union legislation, etc., stem from political sources. If freedom of association in the realm of affirmative action is the right to discriminate, and in the field of labor the right to hire a "scab," then when it comes to the political realm, it is the right to secession.
Those who are not free to secede are in effect (partial) slaves to a king, or to a tyrannous majority under democracy. Nor is secession to be confused with the mere right to emigrate, even when one is allowed to take one’s property out of the country. Secession means the right to stay put, on one’s own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one’s own account.
Why should the man who wishes to secede from a government have to vacate his land? For surely, even under the philosophy of statists, it was the people who came first. Government, in the minarchist libertarian view, was only instituted by them in order to achieve certain ends, later, after they had come to own their property. That is to say, the state is a creation of the people, not the people a creation of the state. But if a government was once invited in, to provide certain services, then it can also be uninvited, or invited to leave, or expelled. To deny this is to assert that the government was there first, before there were even any people. But how can this be? Government is not a disembodied entity, composed of creatures other than human (although, perhaps, there may be legitimate doubts about this on the part of some); rather, it is comprised of flesh and blood, albeit for the most part evil, people.
Given, then, that secession is a human right, part and parcel of the right to free association, how can we characterize those who oppose this? Who would use force and violence, of all things, in order to compel unwilling participants to join in, or to remain part of, a political entity they wish to have nothing to do with? Why, as would be slave holders, of a sort. Certainly not as libertarians.
Thus, it is nothing short of amazing to find that there are commentators who actually call themselves libertarians and yet oppose the rights of secession. Were these people to remain consistent with this view, they would be logically forced, also, to give their imprimatur to union and anti-discrimination legislation, surely a reductio ad absurdum.
One of the grounds upon which so called libertarians oppose secession, the right to be left alone politically speaking, is that those who wish to secede might be less than fully perfect in various ways. For example, the Confederate states practiced slavery, and this is certainly incompatible with libertarian law.
Let us assume away the awkward historical fact that this "curious institution" was operational in the north, too. After all, we are making a philosophical point, not a historical one. Let us posit, arguendo, that the north came to its confrontation with the south with totally clean hands as far as slave holding, or, indeed, any other deviation from libertarian law is concerned (e.g., tariffs, high taxes, etc.). That is, the north is a totally libertarian entity, the south a morally evil one. (I know, I know; I’m only talking here for argument’s sake).
Would that premise be a valid rationale for the north to in effect enslave the south, and thus violate its rights of free association? It would not.
If it was proper for the north to hold the south captive against its will, the implication is that India was not warranted in seceding from England in 1948 since the latter practiced suttee; that African countries were not justified in departing from their European colonial masters since they practiced clitorectemy; that it would not have been permissible for the Jews in 1930s Germany to have left the jurisdiction of the Nazis since they, too, were doubtless imperfect in some way or other.
Let us move from the realm of the macro to that of the micro. If groups of imperfect people are not justified in seceding from groups of perfect people, what about individuals? If we rigorously apply the principle on the basis of which confederate secession was opposed to the individual level, again we run into all sorts of counterintuitive results.
For example, divorce. Under this "logic" no spouse could leave another if the departing one were less than perfect.
In the words of Clyde Wilson: "If the right of secession of one part of a political community is subject to the moral approval of another, then there really is no right of secession." Either you have the right of free association and secession, or you do not.
If secession is always and everywhere justified, what, then, is the proper libertarian response to the existence of suttee, slavery, clitorectomy, etc., in other countries (e.g., in seceding territories)?
Under libertarian free market anarchism, it would be permissible for a private defense agency to invade private property if a crime is occurring there (if a mistake is made in this regard, libertarian punishment theory, the topic for another day, kicks into gear; in this type of society, even the police are not above the law). If A is about to murder B in A’s house, A may not properly object when the police kick in his door to forestall this dastardly act. Thus, free market competing defense agencies could have gone into the south to free the slaves, but once this was done, given that there were no other crimes occurring, and that due punishment was meted out to the evil-doers, that would be the end of the matter. There would be no further interaction. The south (or India in the case of suttee) would then be allowed to go its own way.
Under limited government libertarianism, the government of the north would take no steps to rid the sovereign Confederacy of its slavery (or India of its suttee). The purpose of the state in this philosophy is to protect its own citizens. Period. And, on the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned.
However, even under these assumptions individual abolitionists would be perfectly free, and, indeed, justified, in going in to the Confederacy, guns in hand, with the intention of ridding the south of this evil institution of slavery. But if things went poorly for them, they could not then scurry back to the north, tails between their legs, hiding behind their mama’s skirts, because that would necessarily bring in the northern government into the fray. It would violate the non-invasion (except in self-defense) provision of limited government libertarianism, or minarchism.
There would be no "reconstruction." There would be no "indivisible" U.S.A. Rather, there would now be two totally separate countries. The U.S.A. and the Confederacy. Again, once slavery was ended, given that there were no other crimes occurring, and that due punishment was meted out to the evil-doers, that would be the end of the matter. On the (historically accurate) assumption that the Confederacy showed no indication of invading the north, but merely wanted to be left alone to its own devices, that would be the end of the matter as far as the northern government was concerned.
by Walter Block July 9, 2002
[send him mail]
Dr. Walter Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
College of Business Administration
Loyola University New Orleans
Included in the collection of Secessionist Papers with the express consent and support of the author
Saturday, June 12, 2004
Welcome New Contributors
The original intent of this blog was to house and publicize the Secessionist Paper Project. The main site for the American Secessionist Project is now in the process of taking shape. It makes more sense to host the papers on a static site. This leaves the options for the blog open.
I have decided to use the blog as a collaborative tool of sorts. After all the entire purpose of the project is collaboration.
Toward that end I have invited several individuals to join me in contributing here. For some of you that have received invites this may be your first visit to the site. I made my original selection of invitees based upon several factors.
It is possible that I have read some of your writing. Many of the invitees are current bloggers; some are not. Some are folks that I know in some form, others I do not know.
The initial group represents a cross-section of the myriad groups that seek self-determination, independence or secession in some form. The list of movements included in the initial cut includes: Christian Separatist, Southern Nationalist. Hawaiian Nationalist, Alaskan Separatist and Libertarians.
The only negative response received so far was from one of the libertarians who is concerned that associating with secessionist that advocate States' Rights might damage his position that it is up to individuals to make their own form of government.
It is not my opinion that one view ought to trump the other. If individuals trust their state and wish to exercise political power via the sovereignty of the state then that seems perfectly reasonable. If the state is so corrupt that good government cannot be achieved via that method then of course the ultimate power to replace bad government at the national or state level rests with the People. I think in time we might ease the fears of this potential libertarian ally.
The initial list does not complete the groups I wish to see represented. There are folks in Vermont, Puerto Rico and other locations that need to be approached. I also would like to include Native American tribes and their sovereignty issues and concerns. This will be done. There are also several other independent thinkers out there that have written and still write on our subject matter. Slowly these people will be approached. By necessity this had to start small and be grown in stages.
If you have received an invite (or would like one-email me with a link to some of your writing and views) please consider our purpose when you post here. I do not see the need to lay out a bunch of rules or guidelines right now. Just write to educate and enlighten the general populace. Make your writing applicable to any group seeking more independence.
Obviously if more than two people express opinions there will occasionally be disagreements. Be polite to other contributors. As long as each of us agrees to “Agree in General” we ought to be ok.
I look forward to the contributions, ideas and thoughts of everyone that is willing to join me here.
Thank you in advance.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
I have decided to use the blog as a collaborative tool of sorts. After all the entire purpose of the project is collaboration.
Toward that end I have invited several individuals to join me in contributing here. For some of you that have received invites this may be your first visit to the site. I made my original selection of invitees based upon several factors.
It is possible that I have read some of your writing. Many of the invitees are current bloggers; some are not. Some are folks that I know in some form, others I do not know.
The initial group represents a cross-section of the myriad groups that seek self-determination, independence or secession in some form. The list of movements included in the initial cut includes: Christian Separatist, Southern Nationalist. Hawaiian Nationalist, Alaskan Separatist and Libertarians.
The only negative response received so far was from one of the libertarians who is concerned that associating with secessionist that advocate States' Rights might damage his position that it is up to individuals to make their own form of government.
It is not my opinion that one view ought to trump the other. If individuals trust their state and wish to exercise political power via the sovereignty of the state then that seems perfectly reasonable. If the state is so corrupt that good government cannot be achieved via that method then of course the ultimate power to replace bad government at the national or state level rests with the People. I think in time we might ease the fears of this potential libertarian ally.
The initial list does not complete the groups I wish to see represented. There are folks in Vermont, Puerto Rico and other locations that need to be approached. I also would like to include Native American tribes and their sovereignty issues and concerns. This will be done. There are also several other independent thinkers out there that have written and still write on our subject matter. Slowly these people will be approached. By necessity this had to start small and be grown in stages.
If you have received an invite (or would like one-email me with a link to some of your writing and views) please consider our purpose when you post here. I do not see the need to lay out a bunch of rules or guidelines right now. Just write to educate and enlighten the general populace. Make your writing applicable to any group seeking more independence.
Obviously if more than two people express opinions there will occasionally be disagreements. Be polite to other contributors. As long as each of us agrees to “Agree in General” we ought to be ok.
I look forward to the contributions, ideas and thoughts of everyone that is willing to join me here.
Thank you in advance.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Secessionist No. 7
Considering Secession
Mr. Brian Puckett of "Citizens of America" recently sent me a copy of an article by him that was published on the Sierra Times website at www.sierraTimes.com. Mr. Puckett is a thoughtful and patriotic man, a leader in the struggle to preserve our constitutional right to own firearms. Sierra Times is a first class web site for people who value freedom.
Why then, do I choose to debate the issue of secession with Mr. Puckett? Well, for one thing, he is against it. The title of his essay was "Secession is Not the Best Solution." Here is his opinion on the matter:
"Before it is all lost, before we are subjugated by socialists, before the last vestiges of Constitutional rule are subverted, should we divide the country into states dominated by the two divergent factions?
No, we should not. We should instead drive the socialists out of our schools, out of our government, and out of our lives."
Since I respect his well reasoned arguments and am aware of his deep commitment to the cause of freedom, I gave the issue some more thought, facing the infinitely difficult task of trying to think like someone who doesn’t agree with me. To do this it was necessary to take the approach that secession is a bad idea. It hurts just to write those words! Yet it wasn’t hard to come up with a lot of reasons why this might be true. As an exercise, let’s look at the issue from that point of view.
First the obvious one – our first experiment with secession nearly drowned the country in blood. Hundreds of thousands of the best men in America died or were maimed in a war that devastated the South for decades and left many a family on both sides in mourning for years. Yet it must always be remembered – it was Northern troops, under the auspices of an out of control central government, who invaded the South. What choice was there for Southerners? Sometimes it really is necessary to fight. The question that confronts us is two fold, would it come to that? And if so, is it worth it?
There are administrative issues as well. What of the Federal government programs? What of the media? Who gets what? (I don’t want Sam Donaldson!) What of the military, particularly the nuclear weapons? Who would get the aircraft carriers? How soon could we break up that communist teacher’s union and bring the schools back on board, teaching our values? Would there be civil disorder?
These are serious issues, and must be considered.
Having done so, it always comes back to same old questions. How can long can we tolerate this cesspool into which we and our children have been dragged? We have pretty graphic evidence that the Democratic party, the party of socialism, depravity, abortion and treason, will do virtually anything to retain control of the government apparatus. They already have control of the media and the schools. It is equally true that about one third of our population supports them, and that demographic is unfortunately, distributed through out the country. While heavily concentrated along the coasts, it’s a safe bet that some of these folks are living in our neighborhoods as well. Splitting this thing up would not be easy.
Yet we all have seen the map displaying the voter breakdown by county. The population that votes democratic is heavily massed on the coastal cities and some of the more porous areas of the border with Mexico. What a surprise.
Never was the cultural divide more graphically obvious. We, the cultural conservatives and "joe six-packs" of "flyover country" went overwhelmingly for Bush. We didn’t love him – we were voting against the Democrats. We want our country back and voted accordingly. The cultural Marxists however, are very close to winning. Most of the people who live on entitlements, work for the government, the media or otherwise suck at the public trough, voted to continue re-distributing our wealth at the expense of our republic.
Academe, that haven for the very communistic theories rejected by the rest of the civilized world, went heavily for cultural Marxists; many if not most of the bigger colleges must be considered training grounds for the enemy. When one thinks of Marxism in the context of our colleges, it is hard to determine if we should be thinking of Karl or Groucho! We have a lot of house cleaning to do right in our own back yards, and since we can’t just shoot all these lame brains we’ll be hard pressed to come up with something useful for them to do. That part of it might just be fun.
The saddest commentary of all is this: we may assume that the Christian Church, in particular the mainstream denominations, has been heavily infiltrated by these weasels, even in the traditional Bible Belt. Satan knows his enemy, even if we do not.
So we have a political party that supports homosexual activists, labor unions, including the extremely dangerous teacher's unions, the race baiters, feminists, Hollywood elite, and those old leftists who still cling feebly but enthusiastically to the Stalinist creed. They were fronted in this contest by "Moses" Lieberman, he of the elastic morals, and Al Gore, he of the no morals whatsoever. Admittedly, these wretches are worthy successors to Bill Clinton, and for those who believe as they believe, Lieberman and Gore are satisfactory if not inspiring. No soul searching on the left, no honor or desire to do the best thing for the country. Just naked venality and an overwhelming lust for power. Even the more principled leftists abandoned them in disgust, and went for Nader.
Essentially, this element of our body politic is at war with the principals upon which this country was founded and the people who believe in those principals. They want our money and they want our souls. They want absolute power, and they want it in the name of some bastardized imitation of democracy where everyone can have all the sex they want and call it freedom. It reeks of the barnyard – Orwell was strangely prescient in his use of metaphor.
It is time to consider that, and forget this loyal opposition nonsense. Get it through your heads that these people are most definitely not loyal. There is no "agreeing to disagree" with this bunch, no compromise. Study the workings of the communist party from the thirties and forties and you will soon learn where the Democrats get this incredible tenacity – they will never stop: every compromise is to them, a short step forward toward their devilish goal of absolute power.
They will use whatever tactics it takes, and that includes importing millions of foreigners and declaring them citizens to skew the election results. They proved that by doing it: both in the recent election and in ’96. At the rate they are flooding this country with immigrants, immigrants beholden to them, we can soon forget about western European culture. This benefits no one, not even the immigrants, and will lead to anarchy.
So I say to Mr. Puckett, and to the others out there who wish to work within the system, that the time for compromise was over years ago. Ask your kids what they are learning in school. I’m not just speaking to Southerners here. How about you Northern Californians who are virtually dominated by the leftists in your state? How about you westerners, who learned in this recent farce of an election that your voice is literally a voice crying in the wilderness. Clinton stole another eighty million acres of your land while the country was focused on the election! There are additionally, large blocks of freedom loving individuals in the north east. What about them? Do you reckon they really like seeing homosexuals flood into Vermont to participate in the now "legal" mockery of God’s own institution, marriage? How must it feel to live under the yoke of the socialist upstarts in Massachusetts or New York?
Can we roll over any longer? Immigration wasn’t discussed in this election yet it is the second most crucial issue facing this country, with the exception of the slaughter of unborn children. The latter issue apparently doesn’t exist on our political landscape either. Even those of you who disagree with me on that must admit that there has been no political or electoral dialogue on the issue: it was decided by the Supreme Court, the chief agency of our decline. Working well outside it’s constitutional authority I might add. Shouldn’t issues like these be decided by the states?
In the midst of this upheaval the government is quietly usurping our God given right to own weapons of self defense. We don’t even need a constitution to see the logic in that one – if the government has the guns and we don’t, the government owns us, and if you think that is too simplistic, then consider why the framers wrote so copiously about that very issue. Indeed, our constitution and Bill of Rights are designed for one purpose only: to limit government. How sickening it is to hear these tawdry politicians even mention the constitution they are sworn to uphold. Can we continue under the rule of such men? Dare we?
Mr. Puckett continues his argument by saying " all of the United States is ours." Well, it sure doesn’t seem like it to me. If a cop in the Northern states pulls me over and finds my sidearm, I’m going to jail. If the government has it’s way, that despotism will soon find it’s way into the South as well. So no, let’s not pretend all of these United States are ours. In New York, arguably one of the most dangerous towns in the US, we are required to walk around unarmed. Presumably, this is acceptable to New Yorkers or they would not tolerate it. Yet homosexuals dressed as nuns caper in the streets and no perversity is too vile to tolerate except the outmoded desire for political freedom. Do I wish to be ruled over by such people? Is it worth it? Let them have their way, but only with each other. And make them apply for visas to come here!
People on the left of the argument wish to tell us what to do, and are doing so. We are rolling over supinely and may well be fully cooked before we realize we’re even in the oven. That these people are often well meaning is of scant consequence to me. A dummy can hurt me just as easily as a wise, evil antagonist. That they will is obvious from the state of our education system, and from the systemic acceptance of the demise of our constitutional republic. For those slow learners out there, take a look at our penal system, and the police. Do constitutional republics lock up or shoot people for smoking a weed? To you Christian brothers let me add that the very police state being brought to bear in the drug war you have been supporting, will ultimately be used against you as well. Time to put on the thinking caps folks.
Perhaps this recent attempt at an electoral coup will alert people to the danger we face. And perhaps not... Stealing the votes of military men must certainly set a new standard for sheer venality yet where are the public cries of outrage. They may well get away with it.
I’ve actually heard people on the other side blaming the Republicans for trying to steal the election. As if the vacuous Republicans would have the gusto to fight dirty. What we learn from this, however, is that our country is irrevocably divided. They are not going to convince us, and we are not going to convince them. Despite the fact that many leftists are decent people trying to do the right thing, it’s time to realize that their core beliefs are evil and to separate from them lest we be further corrupted by them.
Despite the traitor Clinton’s efforts to subvert the military, that remains the single largest group in America that do not embrace his beastly ideas. Military personnel actually believe in the constitution, at a rate far exceeding that of say, public school teachers, politicians or TV news commentators. Will that military, most of whom are our neighbors, shoot us for exercising our constitutional right to separate? Probably not – but give the democrats another eight years and the military will purged to the point where it will become the storm troopers of America and then we better watch out. They are rapidly weeding out the real soldiers and turning our military into an extension of the PC police.
Another eight years of these wretches and another generation will have been turned against us by the media and the public schools. We cannot afford to wait. We must raise up leaders among us who will take a stand and who will get us out of this tainted union with evil. We are out of time, we must do it now, and we must make it stick.
Here in America the people who still believe in freedom have reached the point of no return. It can only go downhill for us from here. We must act, or we will have to learn to kiss the boot of an oppressor who is not only evil, but boring. That’s right, I said boring. Hitler was charismatic in his evil – Stalin was downright demonic. Take a long hard look at Al Gore – his principals, if such a one can be said to have any, are very much in line with theirs. Yet this is a mediocre villain of a man who even while grasping rapaciously for power, provokes a yawn – a tedious despotism may well be the worst of all!
A final consideration for every Christian who contemplates secession must be this: we are enjoined by the very Word of God to respect the power of the state. I have considered this one at great length – to be found disobedient by the One who died that we might have life would be dreadful. So we must consider the Office of the State, that second kingdom of God, the one which wields the sword. Our loyalty to the state is commanded of us in holy Scripture.
In America – we the people are the state, and we live in a constitutional republic which has been usurped. Ours is a voluntary union of states – an old and familiar argument, in no way obviated by the ruthless application of coercive force applied by the central government against us in 1861. We are indeed remiss, but only in that we have failed in our first duty which is to govern ourselves responsibly.
As a Lutheran, I believe more than most in separation of the church and state, and fear the possibility of a theocracy. I can’t imagine why I’m not allowed to buy beer on Sunday yet conversely, neither can I imagine why on earth we tolerate leaders who would forbid us the guidance of the Ten Commandments in the courtroom! It has been noted that ours has become a country where the unborn are murdered in the womb yet the dead can vote and run for office. A country that sins corporately will be judged corporately and I have no wish to be judged for the sins of those who are currently running this country.
Since America was defined as a loose confederation of states, I’m convinced that we in no way violate the law of God as defined by Paul in Romans and by Peter in his epistles, when we espouse secession. Secession was and is, a natural and perfectly normal response of states which have become dissatisfied with the union into which they voluntarily entered. Remember that the legality of this was put to the test when the Yankees failed to try Jefferson Davis for treason, because they could not find a law under which to prosecute him. Exercising the rights inherent in our form of government is in no way sedition!
It is our legal right (despite the war criminal Lincoln’s admonitions to the contrary) to separate, and separate we must.
The real question is this: why have let it go this far, that secession has become our last hope for an existence as free men?
by Michael Peirce
November 20, 2000
Originally posted on lewrockwell.com, included in the collection of Secessionist Papers with the express consent and support of the author
Mr. Brian Puckett of "Citizens of America" recently sent me a copy of an article by him that was published on the Sierra Times website at www.sierraTimes.com. Mr. Puckett is a thoughtful and patriotic man, a leader in the struggle to preserve our constitutional right to own firearms. Sierra Times is a first class web site for people who value freedom.
Why then, do I choose to debate the issue of secession with Mr. Puckett? Well, for one thing, he is against it. The title of his essay was "Secession is Not the Best Solution." Here is his opinion on the matter:
"Before it is all lost, before we are subjugated by socialists, before the last vestiges of Constitutional rule are subverted, should we divide the country into states dominated by the two divergent factions?
No, we should not. We should instead drive the socialists out of our schools, out of our government, and out of our lives."
Since I respect his well reasoned arguments and am aware of his deep commitment to the cause of freedom, I gave the issue some more thought, facing the infinitely difficult task of trying to think like someone who doesn’t agree with me. To do this it was necessary to take the approach that secession is a bad idea. It hurts just to write those words! Yet it wasn’t hard to come up with a lot of reasons why this might be true. As an exercise, let’s look at the issue from that point of view.
First the obvious one – our first experiment with secession nearly drowned the country in blood. Hundreds of thousands of the best men in America died or were maimed in a war that devastated the South for decades and left many a family on both sides in mourning for years. Yet it must always be remembered – it was Northern troops, under the auspices of an out of control central government, who invaded the South. What choice was there for Southerners? Sometimes it really is necessary to fight. The question that confronts us is two fold, would it come to that? And if so, is it worth it?
There are administrative issues as well. What of the Federal government programs? What of the media? Who gets what? (I don’t want Sam Donaldson!) What of the military, particularly the nuclear weapons? Who would get the aircraft carriers? How soon could we break up that communist teacher’s union and bring the schools back on board, teaching our values? Would there be civil disorder?
These are serious issues, and must be considered.
Having done so, it always comes back to same old questions. How can long can we tolerate this cesspool into which we and our children have been dragged? We have pretty graphic evidence that the Democratic party, the party of socialism, depravity, abortion and treason, will do virtually anything to retain control of the government apparatus. They already have control of the media and the schools. It is equally true that about one third of our population supports them, and that demographic is unfortunately, distributed through out the country. While heavily concentrated along the coasts, it’s a safe bet that some of these folks are living in our neighborhoods as well. Splitting this thing up would not be easy.
Yet we all have seen the map displaying the voter breakdown by county. The population that votes democratic is heavily massed on the coastal cities and some of the more porous areas of the border with Mexico. What a surprise.
Never was the cultural divide more graphically obvious. We, the cultural conservatives and "joe six-packs" of "flyover country" went overwhelmingly for Bush. We didn’t love him – we were voting against the Democrats. We want our country back and voted accordingly. The cultural Marxists however, are very close to winning. Most of the people who live on entitlements, work for the government, the media or otherwise suck at the public trough, voted to continue re-distributing our wealth at the expense of our republic.
Academe, that haven for the very communistic theories rejected by the rest of the civilized world, went heavily for cultural Marxists; many if not most of the bigger colleges must be considered training grounds for the enemy. When one thinks of Marxism in the context of our colleges, it is hard to determine if we should be thinking of Karl or Groucho! We have a lot of house cleaning to do right in our own back yards, and since we can’t just shoot all these lame brains we’ll be hard pressed to come up with something useful for them to do. That part of it might just be fun.
The saddest commentary of all is this: we may assume that the Christian Church, in particular the mainstream denominations, has been heavily infiltrated by these weasels, even in the traditional Bible Belt. Satan knows his enemy, even if we do not.
So we have a political party that supports homosexual activists, labor unions, including the extremely dangerous teacher's unions, the race baiters, feminists, Hollywood elite, and those old leftists who still cling feebly but enthusiastically to the Stalinist creed. They were fronted in this contest by "Moses" Lieberman, he of the elastic morals, and Al Gore, he of the no morals whatsoever. Admittedly, these wretches are worthy successors to Bill Clinton, and for those who believe as they believe, Lieberman and Gore are satisfactory if not inspiring. No soul searching on the left, no honor or desire to do the best thing for the country. Just naked venality and an overwhelming lust for power. Even the more principled leftists abandoned them in disgust, and went for Nader.
Essentially, this element of our body politic is at war with the principals upon which this country was founded and the people who believe in those principals. They want our money and they want our souls. They want absolute power, and they want it in the name of some bastardized imitation of democracy where everyone can have all the sex they want and call it freedom. It reeks of the barnyard – Orwell was strangely prescient in his use of metaphor.
It is time to consider that, and forget this loyal opposition nonsense. Get it through your heads that these people are most definitely not loyal. There is no "agreeing to disagree" with this bunch, no compromise. Study the workings of the communist party from the thirties and forties and you will soon learn where the Democrats get this incredible tenacity – they will never stop: every compromise is to them, a short step forward toward their devilish goal of absolute power.
They will use whatever tactics it takes, and that includes importing millions of foreigners and declaring them citizens to skew the election results. They proved that by doing it: both in the recent election and in ’96. At the rate they are flooding this country with immigrants, immigrants beholden to them, we can soon forget about western European culture. This benefits no one, not even the immigrants, and will lead to anarchy.
So I say to Mr. Puckett, and to the others out there who wish to work within the system, that the time for compromise was over years ago. Ask your kids what they are learning in school. I’m not just speaking to Southerners here. How about you Northern Californians who are virtually dominated by the leftists in your state? How about you westerners, who learned in this recent farce of an election that your voice is literally a voice crying in the wilderness. Clinton stole another eighty million acres of your land while the country was focused on the election! There are additionally, large blocks of freedom loving individuals in the north east. What about them? Do you reckon they really like seeing homosexuals flood into Vermont to participate in the now "legal" mockery of God’s own institution, marriage? How must it feel to live under the yoke of the socialist upstarts in Massachusetts or New York?
Can we roll over any longer? Immigration wasn’t discussed in this election yet it is the second most crucial issue facing this country, with the exception of the slaughter of unborn children. The latter issue apparently doesn’t exist on our political landscape either. Even those of you who disagree with me on that must admit that there has been no political or electoral dialogue on the issue: it was decided by the Supreme Court, the chief agency of our decline. Working well outside it’s constitutional authority I might add. Shouldn’t issues like these be decided by the states?
In the midst of this upheaval the government is quietly usurping our God given right to own weapons of self defense. We don’t even need a constitution to see the logic in that one – if the government has the guns and we don’t, the government owns us, and if you think that is too simplistic, then consider why the framers wrote so copiously about that very issue. Indeed, our constitution and Bill of Rights are designed for one purpose only: to limit government. How sickening it is to hear these tawdry politicians even mention the constitution they are sworn to uphold. Can we continue under the rule of such men? Dare we?
Mr. Puckett continues his argument by saying " all of the United States is ours." Well, it sure doesn’t seem like it to me. If a cop in the Northern states pulls me over and finds my sidearm, I’m going to jail. If the government has it’s way, that despotism will soon find it’s way into the South as well. So no, let’s not pretend all of these United States are ours. In New York, arguably one of the most dangerous towns in the US, we are required to walk around unarmed. Presumably, this is acceptable to New Yorkers or they would not tolerate it. Yet homosexuals dressed as nuns caper in the streets and no perversity is too vile to tolerate except the outmoded desire for political freedom. Do I wish to be ruled over by such people? Is it worth it? Let them have their way, but only with each other. And make them apply for visas to come here!
People on the left of the argument wish to tell us what to do, and are doing so. We are rolling over supinely and may well be fully cooked before we realize we’re even in the oven. That these people are often well meaning is of scant consequence to me. A dummy can hurt me just as easily as a wise, evil antagonist. That they will is obvious from the state of our education system, and from the systemic acceptance of the demise of our constitutional republic. For those slow learners out there, take a look at our penal system, and the police. Do constitutional republics lock up or shoot people for smoking a weed? To you Christian brothers let me add that the very police state being brought to bear in the drug war you have been supporting, will ultimately be used against you as well. Time to put on the thinking caps folks.
Perhaps this recent attempt at an electoral coup will alert people to the danger we face. And perhaps not... Stealing the votes of military men must certainly set a new standard for sheer venality yet where are the public cries of outrage. They may well get away with it.
I’ve actually heard people on the other side blaming the Republicans for trying to steal the election. As if the vacuous Republicans would have the gusto to fight dirty. What we learn from this, however, is that our country is irrevocably divided. They are not going to convince us, and we are not going to convince them. Despite the fact that many leftists are decent people trying to do the right thing, it’s time to realize that their core beliefs are evil and to separate from them lest we be further corrupted by them.
Despite the traitor Clinton’s efforts to subvert the military, that remains the single largest group in America that do not embrace his beastly ideas. Military personnel actually believe in the constitution, at a rate far exceeding that of say, public school teachers, politicians or TV news commentators. Will that military, most of whom are our neighbors, shoot us for exercising our constitutional right to separate? Probably not – but give the democrats another eight years and the military will purged to the point where it will become the storm troopers of America and then we better watch out. They are rapidly weeding out the real soldiers and turning our military into an extension of the PC police.
Another eight years of these wretches and another generation will have been turned against us by the media and the public schools. We cannot afford to wait. We must raise up leaders among us who will take a stand and who will get us out of this tainted union with evil. We are out of time, we must do it now, and we must make it stick.
Here in America the people who still believe in freedom have reached the point of no return. It can only go downhill for us from here. We must act, or we will have to learn to kiss the boot of an oppressor who is not only evil, but boring. That’s right, I said boring. Hitler was charismatic in his evil – Stalin was downright demonic. Take a long hard look at Al Gore – his principals, if such a one can be said to have any, are very much in line with theirs. Yet this is a mediocre villain of a man who even while grasping rapaciously for power, provokes a yawn – a tedious despotism may well be the worst of all!
A final consideration for every Christian who contemplates secession must be this: we are enjoined by the very Word of God to respect the power of the state. I have considered this one at great length – to be found disobedient by the One who died that we might have life would be dreadful. So we must consider the Office of the State, that second kingdom of God, the one which wields the sword. Our loyalty to the state is commanded of us in holy Scripture.
In America – we the people are the state, and we live in a constitutional republic which has been usurped. Ours is a voluntary union of states – an old and familiar argument, in no way obviated by the ruthless application of coercive force applied by the central government against us in 1861. We are indeed remiss, but only in that we have failed in our first duty which is to govern ourselves responsibly.
As a Lutheran, I believe more than most in separation of the church and state, and fear the possibility of a theocracy. I can’t imagine why I’m not allowed to buy beer on Sunday yet conversely, neither can I imagine why on earth we tolerate leaders who would forbid us the guidance of the Ten Commandments in the courtroom! It has been noted that ours has become a country where the unborn are murdered in the womb yet the dead can vote and run for office. A country that sins corporately will be judged corporately and I have no wish to be judged for the sins of those who are currently running this country.
Since America was defined as a loose confederation of states, I’m convinced that we in no way violate the law of God as defined by Paul in Romans and by Peter in his epistles, when we espouse secession. Secession was and is, a natural and perfectly normal response of states which have become dissatisfied with the union into which they voluntarily entered. Remember that the legality of this was put to the test when the Yankees failed to try Jefferson Davis for treason, because they could not find a law under which to prosecute him. Exercising the rights inherent in our form of government is in no way sedition!
It is our legal right (despite the war criminal Lincoln’s admonitions to the contrary) to separate, and separate we must.
The real question is this: why have let it go this far, that secession has become our last hope for an existence as free men?
by Michael Peirce
November 20, 2000
Originally posted on lewrockwell.com, included in the collection of Secessionist Papers with the express consent and support of the author
Secessionist No. 6
Were the States Sovereign Nations?
A defining – but so far unasked – question regarding the Civil War is the political status of the states: specifically, was the "United States of America" indeed, as our popular Pledge of Allegiance claims, "one nation, indivisible?" Or was it, rather, a union of sovereign nations, bound only to each other by mere treaty, as with any other treaty – such as the current United Nations? (As a point of fact, the term "union" is the only term used in the text of the Constitution to refer to the United States, while the word "nation" never appears a single time).
This question seems to be the proverbial "elephant in the room" of American law and history, for its answer is key in defining a state's right of secession: this question marks the difference between, for example, Boston seceding from Massachusetts, and Spain seceding from the United Nations. While in the first instance, few would question the legal right of state officials to use force in preventing local urban inhabitants from seceding with a state's city, such an exercise against a sovereign nation in the latter example would be (hopefully) viewed as nothing short of ruthless imperialism equivalent to that of Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler or Genghis Khan.
As such, similar implications accrue to United States President Abraham Lincoln from this question, in appraising him as either an upholder of law or a dictator, regarding his particular instance in history of using military force. If on the one hand, the states were held – by law – irrevocably to the Union, then Lincoln would have simply been performing his sworn duty as necessary under extreme conditions, and his defenders might have firm ground in excusing his having "bent a few rules" to get the job done.
If, however, the states were indeed separate nations, then this would define Lincoln as both the ultimate traitor, and most ruthless imperialist of his time, via breaching his oaths to defend the existing order of a self-defined republic of separate nations in order to overturn it in favor of what fits the official definition of an "empire;" likewise, his defenders and supporters would likewise classify as both similarly ruthless power-seekers, and what Lenin termed "useful idiots."
To resolve this dichotomy, we must examine the relevant facts:
Lincoln claimed in his famous First Inaugural Address that "no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union." He could only have been referring to "the Union" as set forth in the Constitution; for, prior to this, there can be no disputing the fact that the states were free and sovereign nations – as established in the Articles of Confederation, which under Article II states that:
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Here the term "delegated" requires contextual definition, meaning literally "to make lesser law;" when powers are "delegated," they are merely passed down a chain-of-command to a subordinate agent by a superior principal authority, in order to provide that agent with representative "proxy" authority to carry out respective duties. In no way may does this delegated authority ever supersede or negate that of the delegating body – any more than a company employee who is delegated authority by his manager, can give orders to the firm's owner, or override the dictates of such. Rather, such a representative can be overridden at any time at the behest of the superior – or discharged entirely.
As such, a "delegation" clause cannot be seen as a compromise or surrender of sovereignty in any way.
Thus, the force and effectiveness of this sovereignty which was thus "retained" from the Declaration of Independence, was equivalent to that of any other nation; this was made clear in the Declaration, via the statement:
"That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do" (emphasis in original).
(Note that the term "state" used here in the Declaration, is clearly used synonymously with the term "nation" for the purposes of this document; as such, the United States had no more claim in binding South Carolina or Virginia, than it had in binding England or France, and the term "United States" literally meant "United Nations.")
Lincoln and his defenders, then, must believe that the states somehow "surrendered" their status as sovereign nations, in the act of ratifying the Constitution (or, as Lincoln added in his First Inaugural, "the union matured"). However this is negated by the 10th Amendment specification that powers were merely delegated, i.e.,
"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" (emphasis added).
In this context, therefore, powers were delegated to the federal government via the Constitution by the states ratifying it, not out in the interest of any sort of collectivism, but merely for the purposes of practical harmony in co-existence – with both union and non-union nations – solely for advancing the individual benefit of the respective delegating state.
Meanwhile, the 9th amendment likewise states that:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Since the term "others" as used here, clearly refers to rights not enumerated in the text of the Constitution, then it thus implicitly preserves those rights enumerated via prior documents – such as the Articles of Confederation, which specifically retains the "sovereignty, freedom and independence" of every state – which the Constitution does not exclude anywhere (but rather preserves, since states would have to retain their sovereign powers in order to delegate them).
Here the term "the people" must likewise be defined, with this term referring to the same "people" referenced initially in the Constitution's preamble – and which, as has been well-established elsewhere, did not refer to all persons in the United States collectively; rather, the term "the people" refers solely to the citizens of the states individually and respectively, speaking through their elected officials – and even then, only those states ratifying the Constitution at the time.
This is further implied in the Constitution's Article IV, Section 2, statement that:
"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
Clearly, separate reference to "citizens of each state," as opposed to "citizens in the several states," clarifies that citizenship was strictly state-specific and derived, and not union-related in any way whatsoever: in fact, the term "Citizen of the United States" was never known prior to the passage of the 14th amendment following the Civil War – being a pure post-Lincoln invention – , and would have no more meaning prior to that war, than "Citizen of the United Nations" in today's context to imply similar supremacy.
As such, it is clear that the Ninth Amendment implicitly reserved the right of every state, to the same sovereignty, freedom and independence which existed previously, i.e., no less than that of any other nation in the world.
Finally, even when admitting all of the above, anti-secessionists almost unanimously claim their proverbial "trump-card" in the Constitution's so-called "Supremacy clause" of U.S. Constitution Article VI, which states that:
"This Constitution… shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."
The level of absurdity in declaring any sort of logical victory, based on such an obviously flawed argument is astounding; for here the explicit language regarding this "Supreme Law" clearly, specifically and unmistakably states – in plain English, no less – that this "law" is binding on "the judges in every state – " and only the judges.
In contrast, the remainder of the Article omits all other officials from any such bond, using very different language in describing its relation to them; to wit:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Any person literate in the English language – not to mention the language of law and logic – should be able to recognize that such explicitly omissive and separate treatment, translates to the fact that the Constitution does not claim any legal binding effect whatsoever, on anyone but state judges; rather, such language merely implies recognition of the Constitution by officials as a mere mutual good-faith agreement. It is simply absurd, after all, to claim that the phrase "state judges shall be bound by law, while all others shall be bound merely by a promise or agreement to support the law," somehow translates to the notion that "all officials are bound by law – " particularly when the final clause specifically precludes any religious test from implying the term "oath or affirmation" as binding via any common "higher law," such as an oath specifically to God, Allah or the Buddha – even allowing religions for which oath or affirmation has no higher context.
As such, the implication here is that the Constitution is a mere treaty between separate and sovereign nation-states – a treaty which state officials simply agree to "support," as opposed to being bound to obey such as a law, under penalty of such. Rather, this treaty is written as merely a bi-lateral agreement, with each side bound solely by its own conscience and good reputation – and as such, may be thus dispensed with entirely, if either side believes a breach of faith has been committed by the other.
To claim otherwise, i.e., that every state committed itself to the supreme and final binding arbitration (and mercy) of the Federal government in settling disputes – under force of law wielded by such – would not only be nonsensical for the purposes of protecting the states from possible abuses by this same Federal government, but moreover is nowhere expressed – or even implied – in the Constitution or any other document.
With the Constitution thus expressing nothing contrary to individual states retaining their status as sovereign nations, Lincoln found it thus necessary to invent such, claiming in his First Inaugural Address that "Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments."
Here Lincoln commits a pure logical fallacy – if not an outright deception – via switching context and assuming, outright, that the Constitution defines a "national government." This assumption is not only supported nowhere in the Constitution or prior documents, but in fact his statement "implied if not expressed" specifically contradicts Ninth and Tenth Amendment reservations that all un-expressed rights and powers – including those of state sovereignty, freedom and independence – were retained by the states; even expressed powers of the United States were likewise mere delegations of state authority – thus implying their status as separate sovereign nations.
In conclusion, I cannot imagine why anyone would imagine that separate nations, would knowingly and willingly surrender their individual sovereignty – particularly, as in the case of the United States, after their having just won it via bloodshed from centralized and consolidated tyranny firsthand, against all believed likelihood of success; perhaps such persons believe Lincoln's claim – which he makes in his First Inaugural Address once again – that "All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties [sic] and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them".
In like manner, I cannot answer how any rational or thinking person can be so naive, as to actually believe that any laws or order can be made so perfect as to preclude any incidence whatsoever of government breaches or excesses – to the extent of such "never arising" – so that the supreme protection of national sovereignty was no longer considered necessary or even desirable to the people of any state in the Union. Rather, I can only prove that such supreme national sovereignty was established and recognized by law for each and every state – and that no law or document that surrendered or compromised it in any manner whatsoever, was ever passed or ratified by them.
April 20, 2004
by Brian McCandliss
Brian McCandliss [send him mail] is a business and economics graduate of Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA, a law student, and a businessman in Detroit, Michigan
Originally posted on lewrockwell.com, included in the collection of Secessionist Papers with the express consent and support of the author
A defining – but so far unasked – question regarding the Civil War is the political status of the states: specifically, was the "United States of America" indeed, as our popular Pledge of Allegiance claims, "one nation, indivisible?" Or was it, rather, a union of sovereign nations, bound only to each other by mere treaty, as with any other treaty – such as the current United Nations? (As a point of fact, the term "union" is the only term used in the text of the Constitution to refer to the United States, while the word "nation" never appears a single time).
This question seems to be the proverbial "elephant in the room" of American law and history, for its answer is key in defining a state's right of secession: this question marks the difference between, for example, Boston seceding from Massachusetts, and Spain seceding from the United Nations. While in the first instance, few would question the legal right of state officials to use force in preventing local urban inhabitants from seceding with a state's city, such an exercise against a sovereign nation in the latter example would be (hopefully) viewed as nothing short of ruthless imperialism equivalent to that of Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler or Genghis Khan.
As such, similar implications accrue to United States President Abraham Lincoln from this question, in appraising him as either an upholder of law or a dictator, regarding his particular instance in history of using military force. If on the one hand, the states were held – by law – irrevocably to the Union, then Lincoln would have simply been performing his sworn duty as necessary under extreme conditions, and his defenders might have firm ground in excusing his having "bent a few rules" to get the job done.
If, however, the states were indeed separate nations, then this would define Lincoln as both the ultimate traitor, and most ruthless imperialist of his time, via breaching his oaths to defend the existing order of a self-defined republic of separate nations in order to overturn it in favor of what fits the official definition of an "empire;" likewise, his defenders and supporters would likewise classify as both similarly ruthless power-seekers, and what Lenin termed "useful idiots."
To resolve this dichotomy, we must examine the relevant facts:
Lincoln claimed in his famous First Inaugural Address that "no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union." He could only have been referring to "the Union" as set forth in the Constitution; for, prior to this, there can be no disputing the fact that the states were free and sovereign nations – as established in the Articles of Confederation, which under Article II states that:
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Here the term "delegated" requires contextual definition, meaning literally "to make lesser law;" when powers are "delegated," they are merely passed down a chain-of-command to a subordinate agent by a superior principal authority, in order to provide that agent with representative "proxy" authority to carry out respective duties. In no way may does this delegated authority ever supersede or negate that of the delegating body – any more than a company employee who is delegated authority by his manager, can give orders to the firm's owner, or override the dictates of such. Rather, such a representative can be overridden at any time at the behest of the superior – or discharged entirely.
As such, a "delegation" clause cannot be seen as a compromise or surrender of sovereignty in any way.
Thus, the force and effectiveness of this sovereignty which was thus "retained" from the Declaration of Independence, was equivalent to that of any other nation; this was made clear in the Declaration, via the statement:
"That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do" (emphasis in original).
(Note that the term "state" used here in the Declaration, is clearly used synonymously with the term "nation" for the purposes of this document; as such, the United States had no more claim in binding South Carolina or Virginia, than it had in binding England or France, and the term "United States" literally meant "United Nations.")
Lincoln and his defenders, then, must believe that the states somehow "surrendered" their status as sovereign nations, in the act of ratifying the Constitution (or, as Lincoln added in his First Inaugural, "the union matured"). However this is negated by the 10th Amendment specification that powers were merely delegated, i.e.,
"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" (emphasis added).
In this context, therefore, powers were delegated to the federal government via the Constitution by the states ratifying it, not out in the interest of any sort of collectivism, but merely for the purposes of practical harmony in co-existence – with both union and non-union nations – solely for advancing the individual benefit of the respective delegating state.
Meanwhile, the 9th amendment likewise states that:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Since the term "others" as used here, clearly refers to rights not enumerated in the text of the Constitution, then it thus implicitly preserves those rights enumerated via prior documents – such as the Articles of Confederation, which specifically retains the "sovereignty, freedom and independence" of every state – which the Constitution does not exclude anywhere (but rather preserves, since states would have to retain their sovereign powers in order to delegate them).
Here the term "the people" must likewise be defined, with this term referring to the same "people" referenced initially in the Constitution's preamble – and which, as has been well-established elsewhere, did not refer to all persons in the United States collectively; rather, the term "the people" refers solely to the citizens of the states individually and respectively, speaking through their elected officials – and even then, only those states ratifying the Constitution at the time.
This is further implied in the Constitution's Article IV, Section 2, statement that:
"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
Clearly, separate reference to "citizens of each state," as opposed to "citizens in the several states," clarifies that citizenship was strictly state-specific and derived, and not union-related in any way whatsoever: in fact, the term "Citizen of the United States" was never known prior to the passage of the 14th amendment following the Civil War – being a pure post-Lincoln invention – , and would have no more meaning prior to that war, than "Citizen of the United Nations" in today's context to imply similar supremacy.
As such, it is clear that the Ninth Amendment implicitly reserved the right of every state, to the same sovereignty, freedom and independence which existed previously, i.e., no less than that of any other nation in the world.
Finally, even when admitting all of the above, anti-secessionists almost unanimously claim their proverbial "trump-card" in the Constitution's so-called "Supremacy clause" of U.S. Constitution Article VI, which states that:
"This Constitution… shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."
The level of absurdity in declaring any sort of logical victory, based on such an obviously flawed argument is astounding; for here the explicit language regarding this "Supreme Law" clearly, specifically and unmistakably states – in plain English, no less – that this "law" is binding on "the judges in every state – " and only the judges.
In contrast, the remainder of the Article omits all other officials from any such bond, using very different language in describing its relation to them; to wit:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Any person literate in the English language – not to mention the language of law and logic – should be able to recognize that such explicitly omissive and separate treatment, translates to the fact that the Constitution does not claim any legal binding effect whatsoever, on anyone but state judges; rather, such language merely implies recognition of the Constitution by officials as a mere mutual good-faith agreement. It is simply absurd, after all, to claim that the phrase "state judges shall be bound by law, while all others shall be bound merely by a promise or agreement to support the law," somehow translates to the notion that "all officials are bound by law – " particularly when the final clause specifically precludes any religious test from implying the term "oath or affirmation" as binding via any common "higher law," such as an oath specifically to God, Allah or the Buddha – even allowing religions for which oath or affirmation has no higher context.
As such, the implication here is that the Constitution is a mere treaty between separate and sovereign nation-states – a treaty which state officials simply agree to "support," as opposed to being bound to obey such as a law, under penalty of such. Rather, this treaty is written as merely a bi-lateral agreement, with each side bound solely by its own conscience and good reputation – and as such, may be thus dispensed with entirely, if either side believes a breach of faith has been committed by the other.
To claim otherwise, i.e., that every state committed itself to the supreme and final binding arbitration (and mercy) of the Federal government in settling disputes – under force of law wielded by such – would not only be nonsensical for the purposes of protecting the states from possible abuses by this same Federal government, but moreover is nowhere expressed – or even implied – in the Constitution or any other document.
With the Constitution thus expressing nothing contrary to individual states retaining their status as sovereign nations, Lincoln found it thus necessary to invent such, claiming in his First Inaugural Address that "Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments."
Here Lincoln commits a pure logical fallacy – if not an outright deception – via switching context and assuming, outright, that the Constitution defines a "national government." This assumption is not only supported nowhere in the Constitution or prior documents, but in fact his statement "implied if not expressed" specifically contradicts Ninth and Tenth Amendment reservations that all un-expressed rights and powers – including those of state sovereignty, freedom and independence – were retained by the states; even expressed powers of the United States were likewise mere delegations of state authority – thus implying their status as separate sovereign nations.
In conclusion, I cannot imagine why anyone would imagine that separate nations, would knowingly and willingly surrender their individual sovereignty – particularly, as in the case of the United States, after their having just won it via bloodshed from centralized and consolidated tyranny firsthand, against all believed likelihood of success; perhaps such persons believe Lincoln's claim – which he makes in his First Inaugural Address once again – that "All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties [sic] and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them".
In like manner, I cannot answer how any rational or thinking person can be so naive, as to actually believe that any laws or order can be made so perfect as to preclude any incidence whatsoever of government breaches or excesses – to the extent of such "never arising" – so that the supreme protection of national sovereignty was no longer considered necessary or even desirable to the people of any state in the Union. Rather, I can only prove that such supreme national sovereignty was established and recognized by law for each and every state – and that no law or document that surrendered or compromised it in any manner whatsoever, was ever passed or ratified by them.
April 20, 2004
by Brian McCandliss
Brian McCandliss [send him mail] is a business and economics graduate of Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA, a law student, and a businessman in Detroit, Michigan
Originally posted on lewrockwell.com, included in the collection of Secessionist Papers with the express consent and support of the author
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Secessionist No. 5
The Illegitimacy of the 14th Amendment
Justification for Secession Number One
Some federalist and anti-secessionist will acquiesce to the logic and reasonableness of secession and independence movements in theory. They will tell you that the point is moot as it pertains to the nature of the United States government as that question was neatly answered not only by the failure of Southern forces to achieve independence in the 1860’s but ultimately by the passage of the 14th Amendment.
The first point is frivolous. No matter of principle has ever been settled on the battlefield. Might does not make right. Might simply proves that might wins. It is the ugliest form or democratic expression; we have more so we get to have our way.
The 14th Amendment is a different case entirely. Taken at face value this amendment would seem to rob much of the steam from the idea of States’ Rights. Specifically section 1 establishes United States citizens for the fist time. Hitherto citizenship rested solely in the body of the states. The very act of stripping the states of their citizens and placing restrictions on the states as to their treatment of the new class of citizenry created under this act seem to remove from the people the power to express their will through the sovereignty of their state of citizenship.
The 14th Amendment changed the very face and nature of the Federal government. History lessons seldom term the enactment of this act as a transition from one form of government to another but that is exactly what occurred. The premise of the central government now having citizens in the various states and expanded power to manage and govern those citizens created a very different form of government. The enactment of the 14th Amendment was in fact the death of the old Constitutional Republic and the birth or a new form of government. No longer did states retain the authority for self rule on items specifically reserved to them in the Constitution. No longer were the desires and wishes of the states considered relevant. Individuals became the property of the federal government. Soon the idea of direct taxation, forced federal military service and a myriad of other encroachments appear.
In very real terms the War Between the States was a rebellion. It was a successful rebellion and resulted in a new form of government coming to power. Our history books teach that the Confederacy was rebellious against Constitutional principles. It was in fact the reconstructionist that succeeded in laying to rest the old Constitutional principles and the old Republic and replacing it with a strong federal government of their liking. The enactment of the 14th Amendment was the mechanism that gave teeth and power to this new government.
While federalist may wave the 14th Amendment and shout that this is the end of secession we hold up that document and proclaim it to be the primary justification for secession. It is on its face a bad amendment that contradicts the very principles of States Rights and checks on the power of the Federal government that were so carefully crafted into the Constitution. If this amendment were ratified in the ways and means properly set aside in the Constitution we would disagree with it and wish to see it amended. This amendment was not ratified; it was enacted contrary to all proper principles.
When this amendment was proposed there were thirty-seven states in the Union. This was of course during reconstruction and the thirteen states of the Confederacy were for all practical purposes not part of the Union. To avoid the indelicate position of declaring these states outside the Union when a war had just been fought to declare it impossible for them to leave the amendment was sent to all thirty-seven states.
In 1866 the states answer on the amendment was received in Washington. Of the twenty-eight states needed to ratify twenty-two voted for and thirteen voted against. The amendment was thus rejected according to the guidelines set forth in the Constitution.
Dissatisfied with this outcome the Congress; composed solely of representatives from the states that supported the amendment, declared that the thirteen Southern states that comprised the Confederacy were outside of the Union. It is ironic that by legislative feat the Congress accomplished what the Lincoln administration declared illegal just five years before. By ejecting the thirteen Southern states from the Union, again, the amendment was easily able to be ratified by the remaining states.
Easily ratified is probably too strong of a term. After Congress’ action to eject the South from the Union Ohio, New Jersey and Oregon rescinded their ratifications of the amendment.
The South was faced with an impossible choice at this juncture. After being denied the right to leave the Union on their own volition the Federal Congress had ejected them and required acceptance of the new Constitution as a prerequisite for reentry. Faced with the option of perpetual occupation and the hope for partial autonomy each of the states eventually accepted the Constitution that was forced upon them.
Under such circumstances where is the consent of the governed? Where is the contract between the government and the people? The 14th Amendment created a very different Federal government with greatly expanded powers. It was never legally ratified; rather it was enacted and then forced upon an occupied people. Coercion and democracy do not make good bedfellows.
The issue of the illegitimacy of the 14th Amendment is not one of North versus South. This is an issue of Constitutional principles and the legitimacy of government to govern. The methods used to enact this amendment and the tactics of extortion used to force acceptance of states and people opposed to it are pages torn directly from the history of any empire. The (il)legitimacy of the entire federal government rest on this action.
This is not a government of the people nor has it lived up to the original compact that gave it birth. The illegal and illegitimate enactment of the 14th Amendment is justification number one for secession and the establishment of a form of government of the people.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
Justification for Secession Number One
Some federalist and anti-secessionist will acquiesce to the logic and reasonableness of secession and independence movements in theory. They will tell you that the point is moot as it pertains to the nature of the United States government as that question was neatly answered not only by the failure of Southern forces to achieve independence in the 1860’s but ultimately by the passage of the 14th Amendment.
The first point is frivolous. No matter of principle has ever been settled on the battlefield. Might does not make right. Might simply proves that might wins. It is the ugliest form or democratic expression; we have more so we get to have our way.
The 14th Amendment is a different case entirely. Taken at face value this amendment would seem to rob much of the steam from the idea of States’ Rights. Specifically section 1 establishes United States citizens for the fist time. Hitherto citizenship rested solely in the body of the states. The very act of stripping the states of their citizens and placing restrictions on the states as to their treatment of the new class of citizenry created under this act seem to remove from the people the power to express their will through the sovereignty of their state of citizenship.
The 14th Amendment changed the very face and nature of the Federal government. History lessons seldom term the enactment of this act as a transition from one form of government to another but that is exactly what occurred. The premise of the central government now having citizens in the various states and expanded power to manage and govern those citizens created a very different form of government. The enactment of the 14th Amendment was in fact the death of the old Constitutional Republic and the birth or a new form of government. No longer did states retain the authority for self rule on items specifically reserved to them in the Constitution. No longer were the desires and wishes of the states considered relevant. Individuals became the property of the federal government. Soon the idea of direct taxation, forced federal military service and a myriad of other encroachments appear.
In very real terms the War Between the States was a rebellion. It was a successful rebellion and resulted in a new form of government coming to power. Our history books teach that the Confederacy was rebellious against Constitutional principles. It was in fact the reconstructionist that succeeded in laying to rest the old Constitutional principles and the old Republic and replacing it with a strong federal government of their liking. The enactment of the 14th Amendment was the mechanism that gave teeth and power to this new government.
While federalist may wave the 14th Amendment and shout that this is the end of secession we hold up that document and proclaim it to be the primary justification for secession. It is on its face a bad amendment that contradicts the very principles of States Rights and checks on the power of the Federal government that were so carefully crafted into the Constitution. If this amendment were ratified in the ways and means properly set aside in the Constitution we would disagree with it and wish to see it amended. This amendment was not ratified; it was enacted contrary to all proper principles.
When this amendment was proposed there were thirty-seven states in the Union. This was of course during reconstruction and the thirteen states of the Confederacy were for all practical purposes not part of the Union. To avoid the indelicate position of declaring these states outside the Union when a war had just been fought to declare it impossible for them to leave the amendment was sent to all thirty-seven states.
In 1866 the states answer on the amendment was received in Washington. Of the twenty-eight states needed to ratify twenty-two voted for and thirteen voted against. The amendment was thus rejected according to the guidelines set forth in the Constitution.
Dissatisfied with this outcome the Congress; composed solely of representatives from the states that supported the amendment, declared that the thirteen Southern states that comprised the Confederacy were outside of the Union. It is ironic that by legislative feat the Congress accomplished what the Lincoln administration declared illegal just five years before. By ejecting the thirteen Southern states from the Union, again, the amendment was easily able to be ratified by the remaining states.
Easily ratified is probably too strong of a term. After Congress’ action to eject the South from the Union Ohio, New Jersey and Oregon rescinded their ratifications of the amendment.
The South was faced with an impossible choice at this juncture. After being denied the right to leave the Union on their own volition the Federal Congress had ejected them and required acceptance of the new Constitution as a prerequisite for reentry. Faced with the option of perpetual occupation and the hope for partial autonomy each of the states eventually accepted the Constitution that was forced upon them.
Under such circumstances where is the consent of the governed? Where is the contract between the government and the people? The 14th Amendment created a very different Federal government with greatly expanded powers. It was never legally ratified; rather it was enacted and then forced upon an occupied people. Coercion and democracy do not make good bedfellows.
The issue of the illegitimacy of the 14th Amendment is not one of North versus South. This is an issue of Constitutional principles and the legitimacy of government to govern. The methods used to enact this amendment and the tactics of extortion used to force acceptance of states and people opposed to it are pages torn directly from the history of any empire. The (il)legitimacy of the entire federal government rest on this action.
This is not a government of the people nor has it lived up to the original compact that gave it birth. The illegal and illegitimate enactment of the 14th Amendment is justification number one for secession and the establishment of a form of government of the people.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
Secessionist No. 4
Secession as the ultimate test of democracy
America is a nation born of and endowed with a healthy and abiding sense of democratic principles. We have moved from a very republican form of government in which representatives elected by various means conducted the business of government to more recent arrangements in which our representatives are directly elected. Furthermore, the growing use of referendums of the body politic has come into general use to settle many matters. We believe in justice and in democracy.
The fact that the concept of justice and democracy are not always compatible is a notion that we seldom ponder. In a system where 51% of the people are able to obtain what they want and 49% are consistently unable to influence the political process justice is an unobtainable goal. This assumes more than the loss of one particular election. I am speaking of a minority within the general population that holds values and principles at such variance with the majority that they may never hope to significantly influence political outcomes. When the difference in the values and principles of a segment of the population varies so greatly and minority groups are consistently left without an effective voice the will of the majority becomes tyranny for the minority.
We acknowledge the right of all citizens to vote via the ballot box. Our system rewards those in the majority while denying representation for the minority. We do not so readily recognize the right of the people to vote with their feet. To simply decide that the political association is no longer in their best interest and therefore decide to leave that association.
Our own Declaration of Independence clearly states the true American view of “voting with one’s feet”:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, 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.
It seems that in the mind of those that advocate a strong, perpetual and indivisible union that the right of men to establish governments of and by their consent was a one time event. To accept their argument one must accept that “times have changed”. What we should ask what has really changed? Have principles changed? Principles are the very rocks upon which all is built. Principles never change. Men through selfishness and perversions attempt to change what principles mean but their attempts are always unsuccessful.
We would cry havoc if a club or religious organization denied its members the right to leave those organizations. If those entities attempted to restrain their members by force in order to keep them in the fold we would promptly call upon the police to use force to free those that wished to leave. In America this seems to us to be justice and this is a concept we understand and support.
In contract law we are willing to see the letter and terms of an agreement carried out. However, when one party to the contract fails to live by the agreement we are perfectly willing to allow the aggrieved party relief from their portion of the contract. In our mind this is justice.
Why then is it such a difficult leap to apply these same principles to government and how we are each ruled? Are we property that belongs to the national government of our birth? Are we citizens of that government or subject to it? If a segment of the population believes that the contract with the government has been violated by the government itself who is the arbitrator of this dispute? Is the government itself the final judge of its own actions?
We are in fact not subjects to the central government. The people through the sovereignty that they granted to the states gave birth to the federal government. The people (the 14th Amendment notwithstanding) are citizens of the various states. It is the people through the sovereignty of their state that are the final judge of the federal government and the status of the contract of government. There is no other reasonable state of affairs. To accept the federal government as supreme to the entities that gave it birth and give it unilateral power to determine if its actions are just can only lead to tyranny.
In a nation that wishes to remain free the notion that the people retain the ultimate right to establish a form of government to their liking must remain paramount.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
America is a nation born of and endowed with a healthy and abiding sense of democratic principles. We have moved from a very republican form of government in which representatives elected by various means conducted the business of government to more recent arrangements in which our representatives are directly elected. Furthermore, the growing use of referendums of the body politic has come into general use to settle many matters. We believe in justice and in democracy.
The fact that the concept of justice and democracy are not always compatible is a notion that we seldom ponder. In a system where 51% of the people are able to obtain what they want and 49% are consistently unable to influence the political process justice is an unobtainable goal. This assumes more than the loss of one particular election. I am speaking of a minority within the general population that holds values and principles at such variance with the majority that they may never hope to significantly influence political outcomes. When the difference in the values and principles of a segment of the population varies so greatly and minority groups are consistently left without an effective voice the will of the majority becomes tyranny for the minority.
We acknowledge the right of all citizens to vote via the ballot box. Our system rewards those in the majority while denying representation for the minority. We do not so readily recognize the right of the people to vote with their feet. To simply decide that the political association is no longer in their best interest and therefore decide to leave that association.
Our own Declaration of Independence clearly states the true American view of “voting with one’s feet”:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, 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.
It seems that in the mind of those that advocate a strong, perpetual and indivisible union that the right of men to establish governments of and by their consent was a one time event. To accept their argument one must accept that “times have changed”. What we should ask what has really changed? Have principles changed? Principles are the very rocks upon which all is built. Principles never change. Men through selfishness and perversions attempt to change what principles mean but their attempts are always unsuccessful.
We would cry havoc if a club or religious organization denied its members the right to leave those organizations. If those entities attempted to restrain their members by force in order to keep them in the fold we would promptly call upon the police to use force to free those that wished to leave. In America this seems to us to be justice and this is a concept we understand and support.
In contract law we are willing to see the letter and terms of an agreement carried out. However, when one party to the contract fails to live by the agreement we are perfectly willing to allow the aggrieved party relief from their portion of the contract. In our mind this is justice.
Why then is it such a difficult leap to apply these same principles to government and how we are each ruled? Are we property that belongs to the national government of our birth? Are we citizens of that government or subject to it? If a segment of the population believes that the contract with the government has been violated by the government itself who is the arbitrator of this dispute? Is the government itself the final judge of its own actions?
We are in fact not subjects to the central government. The people through the sovereignty that they granted to the states gave birth to the federal government. The people (the 14th Amendment notwithstanding) are citizens of the various states. It is the people through the sovereignty of their state that are the final judge of the federal government and the status of the contract of government. There is no other reasonable state of affairs. To accept the federal government as supreme to the entities that gave it birth and give it unilateral power to determine if its actions are just can only lead to tyranny.
In a nation that wishes to remain free the notion that the people retain the ultimate right to establish a form of government to their liking must remain paramount.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
Secessionist No. 3
A brief early history of secession in America
To the people of the various united states:
Many have and will falsely claim that secession is a concept alien to the republican and democratic concepts and principles of our American heritage. This is an assertion that rest far outside of reality and is dishonest to the historical fact. The idea of any form of government existing perpetually without the hope of mechanism for changing the government is born of an ideology that is itself foreign and alien to freedom and liberty. Those that advocate such a notion are often the unwitting agents of tyranny and oppression. It is the idea that a government once created gains legitimacy and sovereignty greater than those that created it that creates subjects of men that were once citizens and makes slaves of a free people.
Our American history is filled with secession and movements toward political autonomy. Most Americans understand and celebrate many of the aspects of this fact. We understand that the early colonist to this land came seeking economic, religious and political freedom. Their desire to remove themselves from the clutches of a government that they felt did not represent their desires and values is something we look upon with admiration. So too do we celebrate the actions of the Thirteen Colonies in their efforts to declare themselves free and independent states. While most Americans understand that these were each efforts to leave one form of government and establish another connection between those concepts and secession is lost on most Americans.
What then of the concept of perpetual Union on the American continent? What of the “perpetual union” of United Colonies of New England” formed in 1643? A union that claimed to be “firm and perpetual” formed of “free and independent sovereignties” was dissolved in 1686. What of the withdrawal of nine states from the “perpetual union” of the Articles of Confederation in 1787? What of the movement in 1814 of several New England states to withdraw from the federal union?
American history is often taught in such a way that the American Revolution is viewed in terms of what the Continental Congress did. The idea that the war was an American war fought by a central government supports the idea of the central government having primacy in the American experience. The reality is that the war was much more democratic than republican and sectionalist rather than centrist. The majority of key victories won were accomplished by local troops and the efforts individual colonies. The Continental Congress was nothing more than an executive agent for exercising of the will of the colonies. Significant is the fact that the treaty of peace signed by King George granted independence to the Thirteen Colonies as free and independent states. There was no negotiation with a central government; no legitimacy or sovereignty was granted to a central government. These are facts that most Americans accept to one degree or another; even those that see the world through centrist blinders.
Those that advocate the primacy of the central union will claim that sovereignty is indivisible and since the British crown had sole sovereignty over the American colonies that it was impossible for this sovereignty to then be subdivided among several colonies. The centrist would say that no matter the words used to grant independence to the American Colonies the intent must have been to grant sovereignty to one government. This premise is falsely placed based not only on the treaty granting independence but also on the fact that the several colonies acted independently before and after independence. The notion that British sovereignty was indivisible is falsely claimed by the fact that during the 17th Century sovereignty in the British Empire was indeed divided among the parliament and the monarch. We are all familiar with the refutation of the notion of the divine right of kings articulated so well by Milton and Locke. The anti-secessionist point of view that sovereignty could not have been divided is a throwback to this arcane notion of the primacy of kings and their right to rule.
A familiar claim of the federalist is that the Declaration of Independence was the founding document for the United States. This line of reasoning asserts that the various states gained their existence from the central government after independence. This is a hollow claim, unsupported by the ample evidence to the contrary.
Prior to the Declaration many of the colonies had deposed of their royal governors and installed instead men of their choosing. Most colonies had within their purview the right of colonial legislation. Years prior to the actual declaration of independence most of the thirteen colonies had a fair measure of self-rule. Virginia alone among the colonies declared her independence in May of 1776. The declaration in July of that year was merely a joint declaration of all the thirteen colonies. It was not the declaration of a unified nation.
Further examples of the independence and sovereignty of the colonies prior to independence include: During the Revolution New York and Vermont nearly declared war on each other. This prompted Massachusetts in 1784 to declare her neutrality in the matter. Virginia declared herself bound by a treaty with France long before the Continental Congress decided to act on the treaty. These are acts of independent and sovereign nation-states. These events proceeded the signing of any compact giving birth to the United States.
The Articles of Confederation that gave rise to the first voluntary Union of the various free and independent American states was written to be perpetual. Such words are clearly used in that document. Centrist and anti-secessionist will point to that and claim that even in the late seventeen hundreds Americans viewed the central government as indivisible. It is interesting to note that the Articles required a unanimous vote of all thirteen states to modify the terms of the agreement. The abandonment of the government created by the Articles and establishment of the government created by the Constitution was indeed an act of secession. This is of course a point not clearly covered in history classes and seldom understood by Americans.
The Articles themselves were clear on the matter of state sovereignty. Article II states:
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.
Key items from Article II to consider are the terms “delegated: and “United States in Congress assembled.” Powers were delegated to the central government by the states; not surrendered. Furthermore the United States in this usage refers to the states assembled by their representatives in congress. The idea that the United States held a position as a viable and separate entity was nebulous at this point. It is impossible to assert that the United States existed as a separate entity since 1776 when this article is read clearly.
The Articles required a unanimous vote to modify the terms and conditions of the compact. Originally only nine of the thirteen states ratified the new constitution. The nine that ratified the Constitution and began operating under a new form of government in fact seceded from the Confederation. The original Union was dissolved and a new association was created. For over a year there existed two forms of central government, one consisting of the states that had joined the Constitutional compact and one of states that remained loyal to the original Confederation. It is interesting to note that during this period ships entering New York harbor (New York being a state that had joined the Constitutional Union) from Rhode Island (a state that remained in the Confederation) were listed as Foreign vessels.
It is clear that the change from a central government under the Articles of Confederation to one under the Constitution was indeed a change of government; a bloodless revolution really. The Articles were clear in the method allowed for changing the terms; unanimous vote. The Articles also were clear in the expected perpetuity of the compact. Neither of these concepts held much validity when nine of the signatory states determined that it was in their best interest to abandon the agreement and form a new type of government. The very Constitution that the Unionist, centrist and anti-secessionist claim such holy veneration for was itself a product of secession.
Secession is indeed part and parcel of American heritage and our historical experience. Secession does not have to result in war. The ultimate decision as to whether war will result from an act of secession rest with those that wish to retain union and force others to remain in their club. This very notion of forcing others to do things against their will seems the most undemocratic idea of all.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
To the people of the various united states:
Many have and will falsely claim that secession is a concept alien to the republican and democratic concepts and principles of our American heritage. This is an assertion that rest far outside of reality and is dishonest to the historical fact. The idea of any form of government existing perpetually without the hope of mechanism for changing the government is born of an ideology that is itself foreign and alien to freedom and liberty. Those that advocate such a notion are often the unwitting agents of tyranny and oppression. It is the idea that a government once created gains legitimacy and sovereignty greater than those that created it that creates subjects of men that were once citizens and makes slaves of a free people.
Our American history is filled with secession and movements toward political autonomy. Most Americans understand and celebrate many of the aspects of this fact. We understand that the early colonist to this land came seeking economic, religious and political freedom. Their desire to remove themselves from the clutches of a government that they felt did not represent their desires and values is something we look upon with admiration. So too do we celebrate the actions of the Thirteen Colonies in their efforts to declare themselves free and independent states. While most Americans understand that these were each efforts to leave one form of government and establish another connection between those concepts and secession is lost on most Americans.
What then of the concept of perpetual Union on the American continent? What of the “perpetual union” of United Colonies of New England” formed in 1643? A union that claimed to be “firm and perpetual” formed of “free and independent sovereignties” was dissolved in 1686. What of the withdrawal of nine states from the “perpetual union” of the Articles of Confederation in 1787? What of the movement in 1814 of several New England states to withdraw from the federal union?
American history is often taught in such a way that the American Revolution is viewed in terms of what the Continental Congress did. The idea that the war was an American war fought by a central government supports the idea of the central government having primacy in the American experience. The reality is that the war was much more democratic than republican and sectionalist rather than centrist. The majority of key victories won were accomplished by local troops and the efforts individual colonies. The Continental Congress was nothing more than an executive agent for exercising of the will of the colonies. Significant is the fact that the treaty of peace signed by King George granted independence to the Thirteen Colonies as free and independent states. There was no negotiation with a central government; no legitimacy or sovereignty was granted to a central government. These are facts that most Americans accept to one degree or another; even those that see the world through centrist blinders.
Those that advocate the primacy of the central union will claim that sovereignty is indivisible and since the British crown had sole sovereignty over the American colonies that it was impossible for this sovereignty to then be subdivided among several colonies. The centrist would say that no matter the words used to grant independence to the American Colonies the intent must have been to grant sovereignty to one government. This premise is falsely placed based not only on the treaty granting independence but also on the fact that the several colonies acted independently before and after independence. The notion that British sovereignty was indivisible is falsely claimed by the fact that during the 17th Century sovereignty in the British Empire was indeed divided among the parliament and the monarch. We are all familiar with the refutation of the notion of the divine right of kings articulated so well by Milton and Locke. The anti-secessionist point of view that sovereignty could not have been divided is a throwback to this arcane notion of the primacy of kings and their right to rule.
A familiar claim of the federalist is that the Declaration of Independence was the founding document for the United States. This line of reasoning asserts that the various states gained their existence from the central government after independence. This is a hollow claim, unsupported by the ample evidence to the contrary.
Prior to the Declaration many of the colonies had deposed of their royal governors and installed instead men of their choosing. Most colonies had within their purview the right of colonial legislation. Years prior to the actual declaration of independence most of the thirteen colonies had a fair measure of self-rule. Virginia alone among the colonies declared her independence in May of 1776. The declaration in July of that year was merely a joint declaration of all the thirteen colonies. It was not the declaration of a unified nation.
Further examples of the independence and sovereignty of the colonies prior to independence include: During the Revolution New York and Vermont nearly declared war on each other. This prompted Massachusetts in 1784 to declare her neutrality in the matter. Virginia declared herself bound by a treaty with France long before the Continental Congress decided to act on the treaty. These are acts of independent and sovereign nation-states. These events proceeded the signing of any compact giving birth to the United States.
The Articles of Confederation that gave rise to the first voluntary Union of the various free and independent American states was written to be perpetual. Such words are clearly used in that document. Centrist and anti-secessionist will point to that and claim that even in the late seventeen hundreds Americans viewed the central government as indivisible. It is interesting to note that the Articles required a unanimous vote of all thirteen states to modify the terms of the agreement. The abandonment of the government created by the Articles and establishment of the government created by the Constitution was indeed an act of secession. This is of course a point not clearly covered in history classes and seldom understood by Americans.
The Articles themselves were clear on the matter of state sovereignty. Article II states:
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.
Key items from Article II to consider are the terms “delegated: and “United States in Congress assembled.” Powers were delegated to the central government by the states; not surrendered. Furthermore the United States in this usage refers to the states assembled by their representatives in congress. The idea that the United States held a position as a viable and separate entity was nebulous at this point. It is impossible to assert that the United States existed as a separate entity since 1776 when this article is read clearly.
The Articles required a unanimous vote to modify the terms and conditions of the compact. Originally only nine of the thirteen states ratified the new constitution. The nine that ratified the Constitution and began operating under a new form of government in fact seceded from the Confederation. The original Union was dissolved and a new association was created. For over a year there existed two forms of central government, one consisting of the states that had joined the Constitutional compact and one of states that remained loyal to the original Confederation. It is interesting to note that during this period ships entering New York harbor (New York being a state that had joined the Constitutional Union) from Rhode Island (a state that remained in the Confederation) were listed as Foreign vessels.
It is clear that the change from a central government under the Articles of Confederation to one under the Constitution was indeed a change of government; a bloodless revolution really. The Articles were clear in the method allowed for changing the terms; unanimous vote. The Articles also were clear in the expected perpetuity of the compact. Neither of these concepts held much validity when nine of the signatory states determined that it was in their best interest to abandon the agreement and form a new type of government. The very Constitution that the Unionist, centrist and anti-secessionist claim such holy veneration for was itself a product of secession.
Secession is indeed part and parcel of American heritage and our historical experience. Secession does not have to result in war. The ultimate decision as to whether war will result from an act of secession rest with those that wish to retain union and force others to remain in their club. This very notion of forcing others to do things against their will seems the most undemocratic idea of all.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Secessionist No. 2
The Right to Govern
Since the dawn of history, man has formed associations for mutual benefit and protection. H.G Wells provides and excellent overview of the trends and tendencies of collectivism that carried mankind from tribal existence to the Age of Imperialism. His volume entitled The Outline of History written in 1920 was an attempt to answer the questions of how man moved from relatively diverse and independent associations to imperial nation-states that waged war on a global scale. Wells’ work is unique and significant in its treatment of history. Any thinking man that sincerely wishes to understand the nature and purpose of government ought to be familiar with Wells’ outline.
We accept readily the necessity for government. The reality of the world we live in is such that without government to restrain the evil around us the individual would be faced with a daily fight for survival. The acceptance of common association in the form of government necessitates that the individual delegate some rights and to the government. In this sense government is a necessary evil.
Free men have always understood the inherently evil nature of government. Governments weld tremendous power over those whom they rule. Invariably all systems of government that are restrained in power solely by the government itself move from liberty to tyranny. Historically this has always been so. When those that control the government establish that the government is superior to the creators and act as the sole judge of the propriety of expanding governmental power tyranny has already begun to take hold.
George Washington described government thusly: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!” The words of several of the other significant figures in our early history mirror the words of Washington. It is apparent that the creation of a new nation and government was embarked upon with the greatest of concern for individual liberties and the avoidance of tyranny.
What then is good government? John C. Calhoun stated in Disposition on Government that:
"The infinite Being, Creator of all, has assigned to man the social and political state, as best not only to impel him into the social state, but to make government necessary for man’s preservation and well being."
This is a principle shared by those that founded America as well as the majority of the thinkers and philosophers of the century preceding our founding. Our own Declaration of Independence speaks of the freedom granted to man by God to establish government. Good government is that which governs least and abides by the documents and agreements that gave it birth.
The framers of the Constitution were very careful to establish limits and checks on the central government. Many today read the Constitution of the United States and see rights and powers delegated to the States and the people. The framers of the Constitution saw the document as rather as a dispensation of very specific and limited powers to the central government; all other rights, powers and liberties not specifically given to the central government were to remain with the States or the people.
Wherefore does the Government of the United States gain legitimacy to govern? Was the federal government born of popular affirmation? Did it gain sovereignty from the King of England via the terms of peace granting the thirteen colonies independence? In fact the central government was born of and created by the independent thirteen colonies. King George III granted independence to the several colonies as free and independent states. The British did not deal with or recognize the central government. The question of which political entities had sovereignty and independence first is clear. The can be no legitimate debate on this point.
In forming the central government the states did not relinquish or surrender their inherent sovereignty. Like all associations of sovereign entities since the dawn of time the communal association of free and sovereign states in 1789 was akin to the formation of a club. Its members chartered the club, a set of rules and guidelines was established, and certain rights were delegated to the club in order for it to function. The acts of forming and joining the club in no way diminished the status of the members.
The term “delegated” is key in this assessment of the relationship between the central government and the states. It is impossible for an inferior entity to delegate powers to a superior. In such a case the proper term would be “surrender”. Delegation occurs between a superior to a subordinate or between equals. The words used in the formation of the Union were those of delegation to the central government from the states; not of surrender of powers. It is apparent that the strongest position intended for the Federal government to hold in relation to the States was that of an equal.
The words used in the Virginia Act of Ratification of the United States Constitution state these points well:
We, the delegates of the People of Virginia, duly elected….in behalf of 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 with them and at their will: that, therefore, no right, of any denomination, can be canceled, abridged, restrained, or modified.
It is clear that Virginia as the sovereign agent of the People of Virginia neither surrendered rights or sovereignty in the ratification of the Constitution. Furthermore, at ratification, they made it clear that the agreement would survive only contingent upon the continued benefit to the people.
The central government rules by the consent of the sovereign states that gave it birth. Those states gain their sovereignty from their citizens; the people. The right of the Federal government to rule is based on nothing more complicated than that. So long as the government rules by the consent of the people it is moral and legitimate. Whenever the government ceases to abide by the compact that gave it birth or usurps powers not delegated to it there will exist illegitimacy.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
Since the dawn of history, man has formed associations for mutual benefit and protection. H.G Wells provides and excellent overview of the trends and tendencies of collectivism that carried mankind from tribal existence to the Age of Imperialism. His volume entitled The Outline of History written in 1920 was an attempt to answer the questions of how man moved from relatively diverse and independent associations to imperial nation-states that waged war on a global scale. Wells’ work is unique and significant in its treatment of history. Any thinking man that sincerely wishes to understand the nature and purpose of government ought to be familiar with Wells’ outline.
We accept readily the necessity for government. The reality of the world we live in is such that without government to restrain the evil around us the individual would be faced with a daily fight for survival. The acceptance of common association in the form of government necessitates that the individual delegate some rights and to the government. In this sense government is a necessary evil.
Free men have always understood the inherently evil nature of government. Governments weld tremendous power over those whom they rule. Invariably all systems of government that are restrained in power solely by the government itself move from liberty to tyranny. Historically this has always been so. When those that control the government establish that the government is superior to the creators and act as the sole judge of the propriety of expanding governmental power tyranny has already begun to take hold.
George Washington described government thusly: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!” The words of several of the other significant figures in our early history mirror the words of Washington. It is apparent that the creation of a new nation and government was embarked upon with the greatest of concern for individual liberties and the avoidance of tyranny.
What then is good government? John C. Calhoun stated in Disposition on Government that:
"The infinite Being, Creator of all, has assigned to man the social and political state, as best not only to impel him into the social state, but to make government necessary for man’s preservation and well being."
This is a principle shared by those that founded America as well as the majority of the thinkers and philosophers of the century preceding our founding. Our own Declaration of Independence speaks of the freedom granted to man by God to establish government. Good government is that which governs least and abides by the documents and agreements that gave it birth.
The framers of the Constitution were very careful to establish limits and checks on the central government. Many today read the Constitution of the United States and see rights and powers delegated to the States and the people. The framers of the Constitution saw the document as rather as a dispensation of very specific and limited powers to the central government; all other rights, powers and liberties not specifically given to the central government were to remain with the States or the people.
Wherefore does the Government of the United States gain legitimacy to govern? Was the federal government born of popular affirmation? Did it gain sovereignty from the King of England via the terms of peace granting the thirteen colonies independence? In fact the central government was born of and created by the independent thirteen colonies. King George III granted independence to the several colonies as free and independent states. The British did not deal with or recognize the central government. The question of which political entities had sovereignty and independence first is clear. The can be no legitimate debate on this point.
In forming the central government the states did not relinquish or surrender their inherent sovereignty. Like all associations of sovereign entities since the dawn of time the communal association of free and sovereign states in 1789 was akin to the formation of a club. Its members chartered the club, a set of rules and guidelines was established, and certain rights were delegated to the club in order for it to function. The acts of forming and joining the club in no way diminished the status of the members.
The term “delegated” is key in this assessment of the relationship between the central government and the states. It is impossible for an inferior entity to delegate powers to a superior. In such a case the proper term would be “surrender”. Delegation occurs between a superior to a subordinate or between equals. The words used in the formation of the Union were those of delegation to the central government from the states; not of surrender of powers. It is apparent that the strongest position intended for the Federal government to hold in relation to the States was that of an equal.
The words used in the Virginia Act of Ratification of the United States Constitution state these points well:
We, the delegates of the People of Virginia, duly elected….in behalf of 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 with them and at their will: that, therefore, no right, of any denomination, can be canceled, abridged, restrained, or modified.
It is clear that Virginia as the sovereign agent of the People of Virginia neither surrendered rights or sovereignty in the ratification of the Constitution. Furthermore, at ratification, they made it clear that the agreement would survive only contingent upon the continued benefit to the people.
The central government rules by the consent of the sovereign states that gave it birth. Those states gain their sovereignty from their citizens; the people. The right of the Federal government to rule is based on nothing more complicated than that. So long as the government rules by the consent of the people it is moral and legitimate. Whenever the government ceases to abide by the compact that gave it birth or usurps powers not delegated to it there will exist illegitimacy.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)