Important announcement -- you feds take note

I sent a short email to Mr. Auster earlier today regarding the 'Obamacare' initiative, the full text of which I include below:

Ray G. wrote:

What if people didn't cooperate with it's (sic) mandates?

People like me won't cooperate with its mandates. And damn the consequences. I'm not particularly inclined to radicalism, but this has just gone too far already. Oklahoma is my country now.

Again I say to all of you, watch Oklahoma. We won't stand for this sh...crap. I may be an early casualty, but my state will eventually (and in short order) come along, hide and watch. It is just that simple. Secession draws ever nigh. And if my state isn't the first to do so, I'll be thoroughly disappointed ... from my prison cell.

Read More

What would be the result of secession?

There is a school of thought that says of secession that, pacifists that we (modern Americans) are, there would be no agressive counter-movement by the central authority were a state or a group of states to secede from the union.

At the Tenth Amendment Center Jeff Matthews argues this position (albeit he doesn't use the term "pacifists," but I think this is essentially what he's getting at).

Jeff Matthews writes:

No way we’d have civil war if one or more states seceded. Not in these days of thinking we Americans are above the fray. We have it in our minds that civil wars and unrest are for the Middle East and perhaps, Korea, but not for here. We are far too good a people for that. There is no way the feds would even dream about it. They’d be pissing their pants, thinking about what to do, but there is no way, they’d invoke martial law and start shooting, dropping bombs, throwing grenades, and launching rockets. Not if it happened now.

Ha, ha.

No disrespect intended, but sometimes I have to wonder about these people, about their personal experiences, their upbringings, etc., -- what it is that convinces them to believe that any government, including (or especially) our own, cannot be provoked to take up arms against its own citizens. The thinking, in my opinion, besides being pretty naive, is a bit dangerous as well.

I personally cannot imagine a scenario involving the secession of one or more states in which the central government would not see it as a hostile act by the offending party/parties. Thus, I cannot imagine a secession scenario that would not involve aggressive action by the central government eventually resulting in bloodshed. So Jeff and I are on opposite ends of this particular spectrum. Okay, I'll grant a 1% chance that a state or states would be allowed to secede from the union peacefully, with no immediate violence done to them on behalf of the union. But that's about all the chance I'd give it. And notice that I said immediate.

Does it never occur to people that it's easy to be pacifistic whenever pacifism is made easy? Sorry if it sounds a little too cliche', but isn't it the truth? I mean, what need have our northern neighbors the Canadians of a strong, viable military? What need of national strength and masculinity when the most powerful nation on God's earth shares a continent and a border with you? However, whenever someone feels like he's being backed into a corner and fears for his life, he's liable to come out swinging. But our government isn't run by a bunch of pacifists anyway. They just like to give that impression because they think it's in vogue. Besides, I hold that any government capable of a Waco style massacre is capable of just about anything.

Update: The discussion took off after I mentioned in the thread the implications of the Waco massacre.

Patrick Henry Lives wrote:

The one thing about Waco, though, was that it was secretly torched. Attacking a seceding State would have to be open and overt war, so the dynamics are different. At Waco, they had to conceal the arson and murder of 80 people, including women and children, and thus play homage to virtue and moderation by hiding what they wre really like and lengths they willing to go to. With a seceding State they could not conceal the aggression and killing. The whole facade of pretending to be righteous would have to be shed.

Jeff Matthews follows up:

Also, Waco was perceived as a small group of nutjobs. It’s far different than taking on a whole state.

TM replies,

You guys are making the point and then missing it. What do you think a seceding state would be made to look like but a bunch of nutjobs hostile to the United States? C’mon.

and further:

…even by a (large) segment of its own citizenry, by the way; a segment of the citizenry that enjoys a form of dual citizenship - state and national.

Hannibal Barca weighs in:

Constutional convention or secession…This is why it is important - NO, it is CRUCIAL, to take over the state legislature. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. The tenth amendment is about the states. We should be focusing on the states. We should be looking at pulling people out of office via recall. We shouldn’t be waiting to just vote them out. Rip them out.

The good news is that WE THE PEOPLE happen to live in the states, not WE THE FEDERAL GOVERNNMENT.

TM follows up on Patrick Henry Lives's comments:

“The one thing about Waco, though, was that it was secretly torched.”

True. But let me just point out that that was after the ‘compound’ and the people in it were ruthlessly attacked (by land and air) by a bunch of jackboot thugs who had already tipped off the media and everything else. So what, in reality, is different about it?

The ATF wasn’t too concerned about the image it was going to project, other than it concerned itself pointedly to projecting the image of POWER wielded for the noble cause of ‘justice’. Not to mention that there was a fifty one day ’standoff’ in which all manner of evil and lewd and lascivious behavior was going on at the hands of our illustrious government law enforcement officers taking their orders straight from the top (granted, this was all concealed). But the Congressional hearings on the matter, in which such things came out, were an absolute joke in which the government was made to look like the innocent and noble victim of a bunch of religious crazies in spite of it all.

Yeah; I can see that happening again.

Jeff Matthews replies:

You are all letting your imaginations get the better of you. Our federal government will not start a war with a seceding state. Think about it and tell me who will. Congress? Not on your life! The President? Fat chance. It will not happen. The feds would rather write them off than suffer the blow in the world’s eyes of having a civil war - not to mention the cost of such a war.

TM replies to Jeff:

Jeff,

A flyover state like Oklahoma (perceived by the general public to be populated by a bunch of ungovernable backwoods hillbillies) secedes. Upwards of thirty percent of its citizens cry foul. The U.S. government has an interest in that thirty percent because they are also U.S. citizens who disagree with Oklahoma’s move to secession. On top of everything else that group would be perceived as victims of an aggressive majority population whose rights would be threatened, and the U.S. government would be pressured (as if that would be necessary) to come to their rescue. And on and on and on.

Now, you can say I’m letting my imagination run away with me, but it doesn’t make it so. And you can’t simply say “not on your life,” “fat chance, it isn’t going to happen.” That’s a bit weak, don’t ya think? But what in God’s name does the fed care about world perception on the subject of a seceding American state? ‘The World’ routinely puts down such movements. So whose side do you think it would take?

I can imagine any number of scenarios involving secession that would ultimately result in bloodshed, but I can’t imagine a single scenario that would not. Nonetheless…

I’m content to leave it at that. We’ll undoubtedly see eventually because a state will definitely cross over that rubicon at some point in the not too distant future. And I imagine that others will soon follow. Until then, it’s all just speculation on our parts. But I’ll wager a cup of coffee on it if you like. ;-)

Jeff replies:

I see the issues you raise, Terry. I imagine it is possible to manufacture a “Fort Sumter” scenario all over again.

I find the whole scenario kind of eerie in a “Hotel California” sort-of way. “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

TM replies:

Jeff,

Believe it or not I’ve actually quoted that exact Hotel California line myself (several times) in these same kinds of discussions.

And don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that a state seceding would necessarily result in an immediate aggressive counter-move by the national government (although that, to me, seems like the most likely scenario if some latitude is given to the term “immediate, for the reasons I’ve already listed and more.). On the other hand, I can hardly envision a “fractured” America (an America that does not universally recognize a single central governing authority) that could live in mutual peace and harmony for very long. So when I say that secession means civil war, I’m saying that a fractured America, from the very moment that it fractures into different (independent) governing entities and onward, is an America whose exposure to internal disputes automatically increases exponentially. Independent governing entities have, by nature and by necessity, authority to enter into treaties with other nations and states, coin money, provide for its own defense, declare war, and so forth and so on. So in the end, it all boils down to internal disorder between the various governing entities, and civil war. At least that’s the way I see it. And let’s face it, there’s no love lost between certain states and certain others in this union. But anyway…

I will add further comments as they're posted.

Also, not that I'm trying to cover every possible scenario, or to mention every single contingency that would ultimately factor into a likely scenario (as if to say that I'm capable of it in any event), because I think it is important that different perspectives be offered, but I cannot fail to mention that in addition to the "upwards of thirty percent" of U.S. citizens that the U.S. government would be "bound" to defend, there are also the "birthright" children that the government would consider, under such a scenario, wards of the state. Again, I think the Waco incident is a good analogous example of how this might all play itself out.

Update: Jeff Matthews responded to my last post above:

I see it not as a matter of will everyone think what everyone else does is okay after a secession. I highly doubt that. We certainly don’t agree with all that England or France does, but we get along with them just fine (for the most part).

I see no problem existing that way and being the happier for it.

I would as soon see the Union stick together, but these clowns in D.C…. They are ruining it for all of us.

I chose not to respond under the article because I figure it's probably time to let the discussion die in that particular thread. Plus, I wanted to give Jeff the final word, since it's his article'n'all. ;-) We can take the subject up again somewhere else. However, let me just say that in his comments above Jeff reveals more lack of discernment. First of all, comparing the severing of the United States into two or more independent sovereign governmental entities to our relationship with Great Britian and France, et al, is like comparing apples and oranges. To have mentioned our relationship with Canada and Mexico, given that we share the same continent and are not separated by a whole ocean, would have been a better example, but it would still be apples and oranges. I trust that you understand why.

Read More

Quote of the day

"Why would I want to rule anything out?" "Why would we take a position that says 'We really don't like this but we're only going to go so far?'" -Rep. Charles Key (R), OK House of Representatives

Good question!

Read the USA TODAY story to find out why I've declared Mr. Key's statement the quote of the day. (H/T: The Maritime Sentry)

How could we ever take such a position?

Read More

Let's go over it again

I had something of a disturbing telephone conversation a couple of days ago with someone I highly respect. We were discussing this issue of the Hussein administration's provoking those of us on the right of the political spectrum by a variety of means, not the least of which is the release of the report from the freakish head of the "homeland security dept," declaring conservative, God-fearing, liberty-loving Americans to be more dangerous than Al Quaida. And by the way, I don't use the term "provoking" lightly. I've personally been provoked, intentionally and unintentionally (In this particular case I think it is intentional, and I have my reasons for believing so. But we'll leave that for another discussion.), any number of times during the course of my lifetime, so I generally know exactly what it is when it comes and I'm not going to shy away from stating it. I never have before, why begin now? Nonetheless...

At some point the discussion I was having with the other party moved naturally into the realm of the question of secession. I harkened back to another discussion I'd had with another person only a few days earlier, a discussion in which the other said something to the effect that it would only take one instance of a state declaring itself independent to touch off a violent civil war in which the lines would be drawn and other states would follow suit. The other party to the telephone conversation said to me the following: "True, but by the constitution we have no right to secede from the union." Once again, we're talking about someone I highly respect; someone who was directly influencial in my upbringing.

I won't bore you with all the gory details of my response to this assertion, except to say that I was taken completely aback by this mode of response from this particular individual, and eventually entered upon this bit of explanation:

Now let's put some thought to this and forget about what we've learned from the talking heads and all the pundits and whatnot. Let's get it down to a fundamental and a personal level: Let us say that you enter into contractual agreement with a neighbor. The other party eventually begins to violate the clear, explicit terms of the contract to your hurt. You petition the other party to faithfully honor the terms of the contract, but to no effect. In fact, the other party snubs his nose at your petitions and remonstrances and enters upon even greater and clearer violations of the terms of the contract. Do you have the right at some point to declare yourself no longer bound by the terms of the contract in the interest of protecting yourself and your posterity, or do you consider yourself (and your posterity) a slave to the other party no matter how egregiously he's violated his end of the bargain, and no matter how clear it is that he will never amend his ways?

The answer, of course, is obvious. And the other person answered, of course, correctly. I then continued:

So, has the central government violated its end of the bargain which we call the Constitution, and for how long has it been doing so? Have certain of the states petitioned the central authority to cease and desist? Are they not doing so as we speak? ... Is there any indication that the central government is anything but deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity? Is it not, as we speak, provoking certain of the states and the people thereof to secession? Does my analogy not apply on a grander scale?

Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. And accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves. BUT ... whenever a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to create new guards for their future security.

Now, call me a radical if you will. But if Washington and Jefferson and Madison, the two Adams's, et al, were here today, you can rest assured that they'd be radical right along with me. In other words, I count myself in pretty fair company. With my forbears, I'm not particularly inclined to be enslaved by anyone or any entity, as I've said many times before. On the other hand, I personally have no interest in enslaving anyone else to my way of thinking. So it goes both ways. If you do have such an interest, or you think you have such an interest, and if you're going to continue to misuse the constitution in pursuit of that interest, then you and I have a problem.

Anyway, the telephone conversation ended on a good note. I was confident it would because the other person isn't unreasonable, he was just misinformed, and hadn't put a whole lot of personal reflection to the question. That latter part was what surprised me most in this particular instance.

Read More

Voluntary Union equals the Right to Secession

Yes; put me on Homeland Security Dept.'s watch list for making such a wild-eyed, crazy, nutty, dangerous assertion. Because, you see, there's no truth more evident to my mind than the truth I've selected above for the post title. It's a truism I've long known and understood, and one I've advanced and propagated within my circle of influence during the same lengthy period of time. This single fact makes me, according to Homeland Security chieflette-in-drag, Janet Napolitano -- of open borders, immigration-policy-is-the-exclusive-domain-of-the-federal-government fame, more dangerous than the growing, increasingly influenial and empowered, Muslim population in this country. But let's get down to where the rubber meets the road, shall we?...

If I voluntarily (the only legitimate kind of contract) enter into contract with another person or entity, and the other person or entity has clearly violated the explicit, plain terms of the contract, evincing a design to reduce me under his absolute control or sway extraneous to the terms of the contract, then I have the right (and the duty under certain circumstances) to declare myself, and by extension those persons whom the contract affects but have yet to establish a viable voice by which to restrain the other party's tendencies to oppressive excess, no longer bound by the terms of the contract as the other party is interpreting and applying them.

That's about as simple a principle as there possibly can be. Any third-grader is capable of understanding it, just as any third grader is perfectly capable of understanding that no one has the right to reach into his pocket as a means to support the other's profligate habits and dependency. Where I come from we call it self-preservation.

When we apply the principle on a larger scale -- say, to the states as parts of the federal union of these states -- then the phrase in the post title, and the principle undergirding it, becomes abundantly clear. To say otherwise is not only unreasonable or irrational, it is a verbal act of aggression against the other party/parties to the contract. And who can forget President Clinton's infamous opinion/proclamation before a worldwide audience regarding a movement to secession among some Russian states in the 1990s during his presidency when he said something to the effect that we (Americans) had settled the question on whether a state or states could rightfully secede from a political union during our own "civil war."? Pardon me for saying it, and with all due respect, sir, but your opinion on that matter, Mr. President, sucks! We know for whom your totalitarian leftist statement was really intended, but I've always wanted to ask you by what authority you presume to speak for the rights (or non-rights) of other states and other peoples?

But here's the problem when it comes to the common folk...

We've so long neglected or otherwise re-written our glorious history that The People no longer understand what the American Revolution was and what it was all about fundamentally. The principle of Voluntary Union is an alien concept to this generation, truly. To speak about it outside a small circle is to speak an alien dialect which is "Greek" to the other side and to those "educated" by the other side. Nonetheless this nation, as Vanishing American correctly writes in this blogpost, was created in the aftermath of a movement to secession after it became abundantly clear that the Mother Country was going to continue to exercise arbitrary rule over the thirteen colonies from a distance of 3000 miles (in spite of the founders' repeated petitions), and that their British brethren were also deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity, lending the force of their support to their government's illegitimate arbitrary policies regarding the American States. It is, in point of fact, a history of repeated injuries and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, evincing a design to reduce them under absolute despotism with at least the tacit consent of their British brethren. And such a prince or government, as demonstrated in the DoI, is not fit to rule over a free people.

And speaking of being properly fit for a particular job or profession during one's adult life, Noah Webster wrote in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language that "Education is all that series of instruction and discipline intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations." (emphasis added) Under the same word he further wrote that "Education in arts and sciences is important, but a religious education is indispensible," and that "a heavy responsiblility rests on those parents and guardians who neglect these duties."

Now, if you think that fitting one for usefulness in his future station(s) is to make him a dependent and servant of his protector and bread giver the "federal" government, and/or, an advocate for and immovable defender of the same, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth, then I would suggest to you that you are an enemy of America and of Americanism. And I suspect that a great many of you who advocate for this line of "reasoning" and this kind of "education" are of relatively recent immigrant stock. But we'll leave that for another post.

Once again, put me on the watch list. I'm going to end up on it irregardless at some point (if my name doesn't already grace the document), what with my absolute dedication to the cause of liberty, of self-government, and of a defense of God-granted unalienable rights as explicated by the founding generation and circumscribed in our founding documentation. By that definition, an unapologetic right-wing extremist I most definitely am. It's all a matter of perspective. And from the perspective of the radical left, I'm an extremist of the first order. Yes, little ol' me. How about you?

No King but King Jesus!; No Government for a Free People than a Government founded on (and operating according to) its legitimate principles!

Read More

Secession movement gaining momentum?

(Note: The first three paragraphs in this entry are mainly intended for the benefit of new readers who may happen on the entry. Those who well know my position on the issue will find the aforementioned paragraphs rather cumbersome reading. I therefore encourage you to skip ahead. -TM)

This idea of secession is a subject we've broached before, here and elsewhere. I don't see much point in rehashing old arguments, but I do think there's a scenario related to this issue definitely worth rehearsing. My view is simply this, voluntary union implies the right to secede from the same when the union abdicates its responsibility to uphold its end of the bargain. Beyond that, even if a state or a group of states is forcibly obliged to remain in the union, such as it is, this is only a temporary arrangement so long as these states are occupied by self-governing independent lovers of freedom.

This issue was not settled, as folks who prefer to see things the way they wish them to be as opposed to the way they are, would have it, for once and for all time when the North won the war between the states. It was settled temporarily, not permanently. As the Continental Congress, through Mr. Jefferson's pen stated it, "but when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government..." To advance the idea of voluntary union on one hand, and on the other to deny the right of the states to secede from the union is a contradiction in terms. Thus the United States, such as it is in the opinions of many of her citizens, is a contradiction in terms. Does it really surprise anyone that people would eventually begin to realize it?

Now, if you personally don't have a problem with being compelled to be party to an agreement in which the other person or entity breaks the terms of the contract at pleasure, or, compelling others to do so while you support the violation of the agreement by the union, well, I guess to each his own, as they say. For me personally that simply ain't my style, and it never will be my style, under any circumstances or conditions, period. And by the way, if you're one of those people that can only see secession through the lens of what little you happen to know about the 19th century war between the states, the causes that led up to it and so forth and so on, and you feel compelled to argue with me on those grounds, don't expect a reply from me. I've been down that road before, and I'm simply not interested in having a long protracted and distracting discussion with you over the merits of either side's position in that war. Even if we agree it's still a distraction from the issue at hand, and invariably whenever I entertain this tack it goes on and on and on like the Energizer bunny; the core of the issue and the whole point of the article is thereby undermined. Therefore, and on second thought, rather than simply ignoring you should you choose to defy my request, I'm just going to delete your post. Fair enough? It's in the interest of all of us that I do so, just trust me. That said, let us get on with the task at hand...

I was turned on to this LA Times article earlier at Vanishing American's. In a comment to VA's entry I wrote the following:

VA, I don't think I could agree with you more on the idea that we have to start somewhere and the internet and blogging is as good a place as any. Indeed, I've often said that the advent of the computer age couldn't have come at a better time.

I think, historically, we're in pretty good company.

Also, I've advocated for a state initiated Article V Constitutional Convention before, but most seem to think it's a rather wacky idea. There are all kinds of reasons people view it that way, some of which are sensible enough. But for me personally it makes more sense than secession, which will, no doubt, result in civil war. Of course civil war may prove unavoidable in the end, but I think we should strive to exhaust the peaceful constitutional options before considering secession.

I'm reminded here of Hamilton's words in Federalist no. 1:

This idea by adding the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism will heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be decided by a judicious estimate of our true interests, uninfluenced and unbiased by considerations foreign to the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished for than seriously to be expected. ...

Incidentally, I've been reading The Life of Matthew Fontaine Maury by his daughter Diana Fontaine Corbin. There's a chapter in the book concerning the civil war and Maury's choice, as a Southerner, to resign his commission in the U.S.N. and accept a commission in the C.S.N. Of course, when Maury went with the South the North put a price on his head, and it remained on his head for some time after the civil war had ended. It's very interesting how Maury used his influence and renoun to try to help his defeated Southern brethren relocate to more favorable environs...

By all means, read VA's article to get some perspective on my comments. Also, read the LA Times article to get some perspective on VA's entry. But for our purposes here I want to focus on something someone said in a comment to the Times article,

19. The ugly fact is that as long there is a United States, with the Federal Government in DC having essentially ALL power and rights, the American war machine wll roll on. If it is not stopped, it will get much worse. And just like every other insatiably expansionistic empire, it will eventually turn on its citizens in ways much more brutal than most Americans can allow themselves to believe. If somehow we could have states with enough rights to check the power of the Federal Governemnt, then secession would not be required.

Submitted by: Jake Shoor
6:22 AM PDT, September 11, 2008

particularly the last sentence in Jake's submission. Jake said: "If somehow we could have states with enough rights to check the power of the federal government, then secession would not be required."

I think I detect in Jake's comments the same sort of reticence I feel about the idea of seceding from the union of these states, and I sense in his tone that Jake is saying "there has to be a better way, surely someone can come up with and advance a better, more hopeful solution than secession."

Amen Jake!

There are few things that I'm absolutely and without a doubt convinced I'm right about, but here's one of 'em, and you can quote me on this -- there's no way in hell that a group of states in this union could possibly secede from the union and coexist on the same continent within the same broad borders with it peacefully. Like I said in my comments to VA's post, secession equals civil war, no doubt about it. Are we such an ignorant and ungovernable lot that we refuse to acknowledge the lessons history has to offer us, or is it that we're just spoiling for a fight, a fight that we'll no doubt be sorry we got ourselves into without first exploring other viable options which might actually effect far better results with immeasurably less bloodshed, loss of life, bitterness between one side and the other, etc. If we're forced into a civil war, that's one thing. If, on the other hand, we provoke a civil war by ignoring or simply dismissing alternatives to secession, and/or advancing and prematurely following through with the idea that secession is THE ONLY WAY to rectify the wrongs committed against us, then which side, pray tell, condemns itself with having committed the greater sin?

The old question, phrased a bit differently, eventually makes its way back to be answered again in the course of human events, "is a given society of men really capable of establishing good government by reflection and choice, or is it destined to depend for its political constitutions on accident and force?" The front end of the question has been answered in the affirmative, and Americans are the great beneficiaries of that unique heritage. As Noah Webster wrote: "The government of the United States is the first example in modern times of a government founded on its legitimate principles. ..." We Americans are also the great beneficiaries, if we choose to acknowledge them, of the lessons afforded us by an affirmative answer to the latter half of the question as I've stated it above. It may well be, therefore, that the question is better restated thus: "For how long can a given society of men sustain good government established by reflection and choice, and what method is best utilized to rebuild it to its former greatness while there remain remnants left to build from?" Obviously the latter part of the question is hereby made of primary concern to us. As to that which precedes it, it has been remarked before that "the ink had barely dried on the constitution before unprincipled men began to seek inroads to undermine the principles contained therein."

But let's consider Jake's appeal for a second. Is it possible that we could somehow restore to the states enough rights to check the power of the federal government thus avoiding the awful prospect of a modern civil war in America? Additionally, if, as is intimated in the Times article, Americans are becoming more and more disgruntled about the state of things in America and the federal government's contribution to that state of things, so much so that they're beginning to advocate for and favor the breaking up of the union at the hazard of civil war, as many of the commenters to the Times article seem to be, might it be possible that we could somehow turn them on to a better solution than secession and that they might be preferentially receptive to it; a solution that, unlike its counter proposal, at least gives us a shot at avoiding the prospect of another American civil war; a solution that carries with it a reasonable prospect of satisfying at least several of their complaints; a solution that would guarantee that each state in this union, and the citizens thereof, would have its fair hearing in the matter?

There is such a solution my friends. I'm not saying it's guaranteed to work. I'm not even saying it's likely to work. I am saying that we're morally bound to do all in our power to effect it before we go off half-cocked advocating for secession. I've advocated for this alternative approach many times before, both publicly (as in on this and other blogs) and privately with various and sundry individuals of various and sundry ranks in our society. It is a radical idea ("radical" in the sense that it breaks from the normative way in which we're accustomed to trying to deal with these issues), but not nearly as radical as the idea of secession. And it's a constitutional solution, not merely an implicit but an explicit constitutional solution -- a constitutional solution that has, perhaps miraculously, survived the onslaught brought about by the introduction and subsequent misapplication of the fourteenth amendment -- that we've never tried before, probably due in part to the fact that most Americans don't know anything about it.

Here's something else you can quote me on, when it gets down to where the rubber meets the road there'll be two, and only two, meaningful factions in the war that secession would precipitate. Whichever one of them prevails in the end will subjugate the other to its own idea of what the union should be and its form of government, just as happened with our other civil war. What that means is simply this, you can't break up this union for any period extending beyond the actual conflict itself, it's simply not possible except in theory. There are various irrefutable reasons for this which may come forth in an ensuing discussion on the topic, but the simple fact of the matter is as I said, it's a hopelessly impossible idea which could never be put into actual practice, this idea that the national government can ever be dissolved in favor of a confederated system of some sort and of some unspecified number.

What can be done, however, is that we can strengthen the bonds of the union by returning to the Jeffersonian principle of "as to ourselves several, as to others, one." And let us remember, my friends, particularly those of you who have a very favorable attitude towards secession and use the founders' words to justify your position, our founders had no other option available to them than to either submit to the arbitrary authority of King George and kiss their chains, or, to "dissolve the political bands" which had connected them with the mother country. Thankfully they were wise enough and had enough knowledge and forethought to secure to us, their posterity, a more favorable position than they found themselves under similar circumstances:

But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this that the national rulers, whenever nine States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States which at present amount to nine, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof." The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress "shall call a convention." Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.

[...]

These judicious reflections contain a lesson of moderation to all the sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue, in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain, but from time and experience. It may be in me a defect of political fortitude, but I acknowledge that I cannot entertain an equal tranquility with those who affect to treat the dangers of a longer continuance in our present situation as imaginary. A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle. ... I dread the more the consequences of new attempts, because I know that powerful individuals, in this and in other States, are enemies to a general national government in every possible shape.

One more thing: There's an element in this country (I know you're out there because I've argued with you more times than I care to count) that is in a seeming perpetual state of self-induced denial about the fact that, particularly under the volatile conditions which exist in America today, that the fires of civil war could be ignited almost instantaneously, and certainly before anyone could do anything to stop or reverse it. It just takes the right conditions for an unmanageable fire to break out, and I'm telling you, most, if not all of the requisite conditions for the actuality of a civil war already exist in this country. I can't do anything about it if you choose to stick your head in the sand ignoring all the signs around you. But I don't have to be party to it, and I certainly don't have to tolerate it at my blog. So please, save us all a lot of trouble and resist the impulse to go there.

Read More

VA and LA hash things out

Do not miss this discussion ongoing in the comments section of VA's fine entry on secession which I linked to the other day. The discussion has gotten very interesting with Auster and Vanishing American hashing things out between themselves.

Without political union (meaning the United States as it currently exists) can the American people maintain their distinctive existence and continue to act on the world stage? That's a question being broached in this discussion. It seems like the question comes down to this: Is it possible for the United States to reorganize itself in such a fashion so as to preserve its distinct nationhood while maintaining its ability to operate on the world stage? Or is the United States of America resigned to maintaining its current political organization in order to continue being a major player on that stage?

With regard to my own contribution to the discussion (which pales in comparison), I can only say that it was not my intent to argue for a "constitutional," or a "lawful" right to secede from the union. The idea of constitutionality/lawful right was raised in the original story where the terms unconstitutional and unlawful were used as I recall. In short I agree with Mr. Auster that secession/rebellion is a "natural" right, not a constitutional right. But I should have made that explicit.

End of intitial post.

Read More

On the idea of Secession (Part 3)

(Note: Since this has become something of a series on this topic here at Webster's, I've slightly altered the original post titles to more reflect this. Here are the links to parts one and two of this series.)

Be sure not to miss Vanishing American's most recent excellent post on this topic where she reveals "The Chattanooga Declaration."

Below is posted a number of very interesting coincidences concerning the priciples imbued in this declaration...

Let's begin by doing a quick comparison between the seven principles of The Chattanooga Declaration and another set of seven principles recently posted at VFR under the Traditionalist Response to Liberalism thread.

The Chattanooga principles are as follows:

1. The deepest questions of human liberty and government facing our time go beyond right and left, and in fact have made the old right-left split meaningless and dead.

2. The privileges, monopolies, and powers that private corporations have won from government threaten everyone's health, prosperity, and liberty, and have already killed American self-government by the people.

3. The power of corporations endangers liberty as much as government power, especially when they are combined as in the American Empire.

4. Liberty can only survive if political power is returned from faraway and self-interested centers to local communities and States.

5. The American Empire is no longer a nation or a republic, but has become a tyrant aggressive abroad and despotic at home.

6. The States of the American union are and of right ought to be, free and self-governing.

7. Without secession, liberty and self-government can never be sustained, and diversity among human societies can never survive.


By Comparison, look at the following principles I submitted to VFR:


Here are seven leading principles of Traditional Conservatism:

1. The Principle of Individuality;

2. The Principle of Self-Government;

3. The Historical Character of Americans as our heritage;

4. The property of conscience (meaning a man has a property in his conscience);

5. The original form of our Government;

6. Local self-government;

7. The Principle of American Political Union.

Very quickly my initial thoughts are these...

I'm struck by not only the similarity between the two lists, but that the numbers of the principles themselves follow very closely the same order. For instance, number 2 on both lists speaks of self-government. No. 5 in the Chattanooga Declaration says that America is no longer a nation or a republic; by comparison Principle no. 5 in my list cites our original form of Government. No. 6 in both lists speaks of local self-government. And finally, number seven...

No. 7 in the Chatanooga list states that secession is necessary to preserve and sustain liberty and self-government; and diversity among human societies. I think that number 7 is where the biggest difference in the principles of the two lists resides, though the two no. 7s are still very similar.

In contrast to what the Chatanooga Secessionists concluded in their no. 7, number seven on my list, American political union, acknowledges secession as an option or a tool to preserving liberty and self-government, but not the preferable option. Preferable to Secession would be a return to the original form of our government, or, principle no. 5 in my list.

There are even other more subtle similarities between the two lists that I think are there. For instance, number three on both lists may be said to be speaking of the revival of historical Americanism which cannot abide a merger between government and corporations to tyrannize a people of character. By returning political power back to the local communities and States (Chattanooga principle no. 4), the principle of Conscience as property (principle no. 4 in my list) may best be secured.

As for my list, it isn't my list at all. I just discovered it, or was introduced to it due to an unusual set of circumstances, oh, around 15 or 16 years ago. It didn't take me long to embrace the principles embodied in that list though. In fact, the list as you read it here and as posted over at VFR is an alteration on the original list that I was introduced to. I may share more on that later.

(I'll be adding more to this post later.)

Read More

On the idea of Secession (Part 2)

(Update: I've added a few initial thoughts on the comments I've received so far.)

This is an important, as well as a very interesting topic. I'm going to post the excellent comments that I got to the original entry under the read more section of this entry in hopes that this will prevent their being missed (Please post additional comments pertinent to this question here)...

VA writes:

Terry, you've written a very well-thought out entry on this topic.
I appreciate your point of view.
I think many of those who are involved in the secessionist movement are not necessarily driven by pure animus towards DC, but an alarm at what is being done in and to our country. For many reasons it looks as though our elected officials have cut themselves off from the will of the people, which as you know, is supposed to be the basis for our government. I think many people, seeing a government which is utterly unresponsive to our will, think that such a government is no longer legitimate.

"[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law." - Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Adams County, Pa., 1808

"The mother principle [is] that 'governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it.'" - Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

The fact that our government seems to be attempting to overturn the people by repopulating our country with a new majority is extremely serious. I can't imagine that our forefathers would accept such a thing; their grievances against King George were not as serious as today's grievances.
Having Confederate ancestors, I don't see secession as a great evil per se, though it's not something to be taken lightly by any means. Still I think there has to be the option of peacefully leaving the Union if it no longer is what it was designed to be, and if it no longer embodies the will of the people.
Peaceful separations have happened in history.

Fellow AFBer, Mike Tams writes:

Good post. I'd say that my thoughts on the matter aren't far different from yours. A voluntary union should imply a perpetual right to dissolve it - for legitimate reasons, and then it's not a matter to be taken lightly. Dissolving the Union would hold, in my opinion, grave consequences both here and abroad.

And lest Mark Alexander think we're on the same page here, I must reiterate that dissolving that bond would only be just for just reasons; and then, I would imagine that such a dissolution would be followed by another, different, union. History may have been written much differently had our union been less effective.

Populist writes:

While I'm not familiar with the calls for secession (who or why), I find the very notion a farse. In addition to representatives that will govern with the will of the people, I believe that the states need to rely less on the "central government" (to borrow a term from Mr. Morris)to govern. To me, because of party politics, the state governments have become to intertwined with the "central government." These so called representatives are more interested in who controls the house/senate and White House (not to mention re-election), than what is best for these United States. We, the governed, need to wake up from our seemingly endless slumber and take back our government! We have allowed a minority of power brokers, from both parties, to determine the direction of our country and it doesn't take a genious to see that they are running it right in to the ground.

(I will add any further comments on this idea under this title, as well as my own replies to the comments later on.)

**********

Here are my initial thoughts on what my commenters have said so far:

First, I didn't mean to imply that these secessionist groups are necessarily driven by pure animus toward the central government, only that this is the impression I get from what I've read of them so far. My impression could be totally wrong, to be sure, and VA is right to point this out.

Also, I don't necessarily believe that these secessionist movements are bad, or that they'll ultimately result in dire consequences for the United States, though this does concern me, as it does all of my commenters.

Indeed, I think a good argument can be made that the mere threat of secession might alarm folks enough to say to themselves "hey!, we've got a serious threat here of breaking up the union of these States, which could potentially result in putting the disparate parts, and therefore the whole North American Continent, in a very precarious and vulnerable situation. We better try to devise a better plan here; a plan to strengthen, not to dissolve the union."

And this is one reason that I think it is dangerous for us to ever look on secession as illegal, unconstitutional, or whatever. If we consider it to be so, then we deprive ourselves, this nation, of one method of detecting a problem and correcting itself. I.e., the threat of the break up of the union.

I've written many times in the past, but for the benefit of Populist let me reiterate, that the American Civil War resulted in some very problematic alterations to our form of government. Essentially we went from a Federal Representative Republic where there was a built-in balance between the national and the federal aspects, to a centralized form of government where the moderating influence of federalism was essentially removed via incorporation which the fourteenth amendment provided an avenue for the federal courts to assert and enforce, though this was not the intent of the framers of the fourteenth amendment. Things have steadily degenerated ever since.

Nonetheless, this is what has happened, and I think it's perfectly understandable that many Americans do not (yet) realize how far we've strayed from the original legitimate, self-correcting design of this government. I mean, this is all we've known for how many decades? We cannot allow it to continue though. And if it takes the threat of the breakup of the union to get people to realize there's a huge problem here that needs to be resolved, then I'm all for it. We just need to be able to help them understand the true nature of the problem, and the proper way of going about fixing it. If this can be done without breaking up the union (and I'm persuaded that it can and must), but rather in actually strengthening it, then I can hardly see how dissolving the union of these States to be the preferable alternative. Though an alternative it must remain.

Read More

On the idea of Secession (Part 1)

I've been promising to link up to the AFB post on this topic for several days now. I wanted to do a full post on the topic myself, but I just haven't been able to wrap my brain around the subject enough in this context to put together what I would consider a quality entry.

However, I went over to Vanishing American's last night and discovered that VA had done a post on the topic as well...

While I still can't seem to get my mind wrapped around the idea in this context (Southerners and Leftists uniting to disunite), I will say this about VA's questions concerning the "legality" of Secession under the Constitution:

To my mind (and I invite anyone to correct me here) the very idea of "voluntary union" implies a perpetual right to secession. Once it becomes perpetually impossible or illegal or "unconstitutional" to secede from the union, there's nothing "voluntary" about it. I hold that this federal union was originally formed through voluntary political association. I hold as well that no State in this union has any inherent right to voluntarily become a perpetual slave to this union; that to do so is to deprive one's progeny of their very freedom. This, in short, is the Biblical Christian view of God, man, and government.

One thing that distinguishes America in the history of nations, and of nation-making, is this very concept of voluntary political union. And one way in which the founding fathers secured this idea is through federalism, which, incidentally, is a perfectly untenable political organization without an acknowledgment of the basic right of secession, or, voluntary disassociation. In other words, where there exists no right to voluntarily secede from the union of these states, there is no longer any federalism to balance the excesses of nationalism. This is the very reason that we now wrongly refer to the central government as the "federal government," which it most certainly is not.

I personally do not think it wise for these political opposites to unite under the banner of secession. I get the impression from what I read of them that they're so blinded by their animus toward the central government that they can't, nor do they even wish to see their way to a better solution. And I personally think there is one.

It's easy to say "let's dissolve the union," particularly when you don't put much reflection to what that would mean at length. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the map and immediately determine that the United States appears as though it was ordered by Providence to be one united country. That the founders were wise enough to see this, and to make us "several as to ourselves, one as to all others," should give us pause when we start thinking in terms of breaking up the union of these states into so many sovereignties under no united government.

Are Americans, which have historically been an "enlightened" people, destined to commit the same political errors that stain the annals of human history? Are we to revert to our base natures and to break ourselves up into three, four, or more warring factions on a single continent with no centralizing and uniting influence exerted over us; an influence which we can cheerfully submit ourselves to for the common good of this nation and this people?

I think Americans have historically been better than this. Yes; we had a secessionist movement once before which resulted in the war between the states, the fourteenth amendment, and incorporation, and so on and so forth. But it seems to me that the age-old question "can men be governed by reflection and choice, or must we rely on conquest and force for our political constitutions?," should be an ever-present reminder that a wrong election on our parts might finally settle the question firmly in favor of the latter.

Read More