Mt. Pleasant, SC–As little as I wished to make my first post for FPR an overtly political essay on contemporary affairs–I had meant to rumination growing up in a small village attendant upon farmlands in upstate New York–I was compelled by the events of the last few weeks to say a few words on the new phenomenon of serious discussion of secession. And secession is, anyway, a core principle of decentralism and self-determination, having to do with the distribution of power, approximate self-government, and the proper scale of human endeavors that I would take to be inherent in the Front Porch Republic.
It is heartening that at last, thanks to a few off-the-cuff remarks by Texas governor Rick Perry on “tea-party” day, people are starting to talk about secession in these not-very-United States, and for the most part taking the concept seriously. (“Secession Talk,” as the New York Times put it, “Stirs Furor.”) It’s the first time it has been a genuine subject in American public discourse, says Emory University secession scholar Donald Livingston, since the war of Southern Independence was settled in 1865.
So it’s no surprise that a lot of people have completely misunderstood it, and that the nerve in their knees often impels them to declare it illegal and unconstitutional. Robert Schlesinger, a columnist for U.S. News, is typical: under a headline “Texas Can’t Secede,” he wrote that “one third of the voters think the state has the legal right to secede from the Union.” Then, so sure of his errant position he could get cutsey, he added, “Ummm, no,” and went on to scold them for being so ignorant.
But the plain truth is that Texas has that right, and so do the other 49 states.
In fact, there has never been a real question about the legitimacy of secession. It was the principle that led the 13 colonies to fight to get out from under the British crown in the war of 1776. It was the principle implicit in the 13 states ratifying the Constitution in 1789, made explicit in the ratifying documents of New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island. It was the option understood to be available to all states from that time until 1861, and considered by New England states at the Hartford Convention of 1814. No one put forth a compelling argument that secession was unconstitutional, and the fact that the US Congress in 1861 debated and failed to pass a law against it proves that it was not illegal even in that year.
Lincoln put forth various, and often greatly varying, arguments against secession, but, as Livingston says, relying on their refutation by pro-Unionist philosopher Christopher Wellman (A Theory of Secession, 2005), “Lincoln’s arguments are preposterous.” He was not relying on reason and history and philosophical argument, no more than his party did, but on instinct and temperament, with pride and egotism (“Not on my watch”) mixed in.
(In fact, so far as reason has to do with it, Lincoln had previously argued that “any people anywhere… have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better,” and in his First Inaugural held that “if a majority deprives a minority of a clearly written constitutional right,” that would justify revolution.)
Of course it is true that the particular secession of 1861-65 did not succeed–but that didn’t make it illegal or even unwise. It made it a failure, that’s all. The victory by a superior military might is not the same thing as the creation of a superior constitutional right. In fact it dealt only with the question of whether secession would work that one time, decisively decided in the negative by an autocratic, unconstitutional usurpation of power and the waging of a deadly war that defied all civilized standards of warfare to date.
Amid all the talk today, it will be necessary for those who know history and the Constitution to refute those who throw up the rhetoric of “illegal” and “unconstitutional” and the like so that we can get on to an examination of its particular merits.
For example, that New York Times story on “Secessionist Talk” declared that there has been “no serious argument since the Civil War [sic]on behalf of a legal basis for a state’s secession.” Completely wrong. In 1998 David Gordon brought together ten eminent scholars to offer as serious, not to mention academic, a set of arguments for secession (Secession, State,and Liberty) as there could be. Some of the contributors to that volume, notably Livingston, Clyde Wilson, and Thomas di Lorenzo, have subsequently written any number of articles laying out the legitimacy and legality of secession from the Union. The Wellman book also is an extremely careful setting out of not only legal bases but moral and political supports for that action.
I’m not saying that secession is necessarily the immediate answer to the roiling problems of this country for everyone everywhere. But it is something that should rightly be considered, thoughtfully and thoroughly, by many of the states and regions that see themselves as illegitimately being pushed around and dictated to and mishandled by a central government that has, over the last few decades, proven itself to be undemocratic, unresponsive, corrupt, inept, and unduly intrusive, at times unlawful and unconstitutional, and essentially unable to govern at the geographic and populational scale to which we have grown.
Looked at it that way, it’s about the only thing that makes sense.
154 comments
Chaotician
People,
May I propose that these dis-United States of America must with decorum and good will separate into self chosen geographical states for self governance in conformance with the will of the people. That these new sovereign states do freely separate and abide by the will and law to facilitate the separation and for a period of at least 10 years and no more than 40 years agree to join defense and support during any military assaults against any former sate of the United Sates of America. Further, we urge those adjoining states where the majority of the peoples within substantially agree with the majorities of the peoples in the adjoining states to combine into greater economic unions and a centralized governance of the combined states for greater efficiency and uniformity of law. Using this basis, we propose the following state combinations: all western states west of a north/south line 31 miles east of the center of Denver Colorado. All states north of the Mason-Dixon line of demarcation of Slavery and east of the Minnesota & Dakotas borders. The Confederate States east of the Mississippi. The plains states from the Dakotas to Texas. Let these general demarcations be used as staring points for forming these new confederations of States based on the majority choices of each areas peoples not limited by state borders including the free choices of our great cities to separately determine their own fates. Let the sovereign Native American peoples also choose their destiny, the peoples of Utah and Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, Indiana and Florida too! A reconciliation process to exchange peoples and property between the newly constituted states must be provided and support for new lives included. The new federation of the dis-United States along with the provinces of Canada, and the Latin American states will provide a sound basis for new freedoms for the peoples of North America.
Cin
“Ultimately, the War Between the States resolved the Constitution’s meaning for any states that entered the Union after 1865, with no delusions about the contractual understanding of the parties. Thus, 15 states from Alaska to Colorado to Washington entered in the full understanding that this was the view of the Union. Moreover, the enactment of the 14th Amendment strengthened the view that the Constitution is a compact between “the people” and the federal government. The amendment affirms the power of the states to make their own laws, but those laws cannot “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
There remains a separate guarantee that runs from the federal government directly to each American citizen. Indeed, it was after the Civil War that the notion of being “American” became widely accepted. People now identified themselves as Americans and Virginians. While the South had a plausible legal claim in the 19th century, there is no plausible argument in the 21st century. That argument was answered by Lincoln on July 4, 1861, and more decisively at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865.”
B. Williams
Sigh…
Here at the bottom of the comments, I am seeing a LOT of ignorance about the situation concerning secession. Allow me to present a Union reenactor’s view of “secesh”…
First, let me point out that secession argument came about when the Fire-Eaters in Congress (circa-1850) started grumbling about the Compromise of said year. At least, the one that brought about the Civil War, or as we Unionists call it, the War of Southern Insurrection. And when it DID happen, it didn’t happen because of anything that the government did. The reason? Abe Lincoln got elected. Gee, under that kind of rationale half the nation should have seceded when Barack Obama got elected for the simple fact that he’s a social democrat of the most left variety and we don’t like his policies. And by the way, half the nation would have seceded under this rationale on Nov. 5, 2008.
What rubbish. The South might have a legitimate argument if the Federal government had ACTUALLY done something unconstitutional. But at the time they seceded, the Feds actually HADN’T done anything antagonizing. And let’s not forget that up until about 1860, the South had pretty much dictated policy to the North. John Calhoun and his ilk had monopolized power for the South for nearly fifty years until the North got wise and pushed back. American imperialism (aka Manifest Destiny)? Spread nation-wide, particularly strong in the Deep South. Why? More room for slavery to expand.
And yes, I’m bringing slavery into this discussion. The causes of the Civil War are incomprehensible unless the issue of slavery is taken into account. States’ rights was nothing more than a smokescreen under which was the economic interests and power in Congress of several thousand slave-holding land-owners. The rights of the common man would never have been taken away if they had bothered to check the power of the plantation owners, but instead they bought the states’ rights drug and were seduced into insurrection. It’s well and good (and NOBLE) to want to protect one’s home and property, but such a thing hinges on the respect of law. The whole argument for secession was curb-stomped by Daniel Webster in his Second Reply to Hayne. And if we are to consider ourselves a nation of Men, “endowed by their Creator with certain, inalienable Rights, that among those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, then our nation cannot and could not allow slavery to continue. It undermines our entire rationale of being who we are. Our nation and slavery were incompatible, and the issues would have eventually come to a head in some other form or fashion within a decade or so anyway.
As a man who loves his country and his state, and as a reenactor doing honor to the memory of his ancestors who fought for both sides, for the love of GOD, people, don’t talk about secession unless the Feds begin to occupy our cities for no good reason. What matters more is our homes, our families, and our honor. Let’s not repeat the same mistakes our forefathers killed each other over.
nick ai jordan jumpman pro
ictated to and mishandled by a central government that has, over the last few decades, proven itself to be undemocratic, unresponsive, corrupt, inept, and unduly intrusive, at times unlawful and unconstitutional, and essentially unable to govern at the geographic and populational scale to which we have grown.
nick ai jordan jumpman pro
More like it’s no surprise, that the trained parrots spout back what our regime has steadily repeated to them since the 1830’s: i.e. that the U.S. Constitution is a national document over subordinate states, rather than a federal document among sovereign ones.
Brian McCandliss
More like it’s no surprise, that the trained parrots spout back what our regime has steadily repeated to them since the 1830’s: i.e. that the U.S. Constitution is a national document over subordinate states, rather than a federal document among sovereign ones.
And the most truly bird-brained of them, will even claim that “duh, Da Civil War taught dem whose wuz right, DAAWK!”
Of course, this simply means that not only do they admit that the USA is an imperial dictatorship of abysmally bloody origin, but that they proudly and arrogantly brag about it, thinking that this is the way it SHOULD be. There’s simply no reasoning with such brain-dead acolytes of the almighty state, and the infinite wisdom of benevolent dictators (thus the fawning worship of Lincoln); by their logic, Hitler’s invasion of Poland was “The European Civil War…” or that the Holocaust “settled” the issue of which is the one true faith.
custom pins
I agree with yuou, Mr. McCandliss. “So it’s no surprise that a lot of people have completely misunderstood it, and that the nerve in their knees often impels them to declare it illegal and unconstitutional”
My point Exactly
Brian McCandliss
P.S. You still haven’t learned the meaning of “rebellion–” which cannot apply to sovereign states– which they all are, by any consistent reading and construction of international law.
And here, the law is determined by the original intentions of the People of the respective individual states themselves– which was ALWAYS to declare and retain their idividual soveriegnty, not throw it away to create a single massive empire.
Your pragmatism is likewis Machiavellian at best, claiming that the sword defeats all law and logic; I think you’ll find little future with that base mentality– Vikings and Mongols are things of the past.
Brian McCandliss
Glad to saee that you take no issue with the facts of my statements– by which standard you must be taken to agree with them.
As for the rest: my purpose is not to “lead,” but simply but to inform.
Siarlys Jenkins
Mr. McCandliss, you have Humpty-Dumpty’s way with words: “When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean.” That is, practically, a truism, for the person speaking; nobody can stop you from spouting words in that manner, but it makes meaningful communication or persuasion almost impossible. I’m glad to know that no Jacksonian Democrat, nor free-soil Republican, will find favor with you. That should limit the popularity of your rebellion — since to date you have no state to lead into secession.
Brian McCandliss
Jenkins,
I am QUITE familiar with all of your fallacies that you mentioned, thank you very much, and I’ve dispatched them many times; so consider yourself another notch, another expended round and another emptied chamber.
You clearly don’t even know secession– which is legal– from REBELLION, which is NOT; also Jackson was just as deluded as Lincoln, making claims which likewise went against historical fact. On the contrary, Lincoln was PLAGIARIZING Jackson in his First Inaugural speech, having used Jackson’s 1832 Proclamation-speech as one of only three writers– the others being similar charlatans of Daniel Webster and Joseph Story.
Likewise, it doesn’t MATTER if each new state was recognized by “discrete action” or not; after all, the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 was a joint action among various states including Britain and France.
Likewise, a “federal action” to admit a new state into the Union, still requires recognition of such via the MAJORITY of existing states, va their respective federal delegates– but that’s going by the book: in reality, the people of each new state, have the same right to self-government, as the existing states: i.e. by virtue of the democratic right of self-government claimed by the original 13. This power did NOT accrue to simply whatever doof held title to the real-estate, otherwise they’d still be ruled by the British Crown.
As for history: the Republicans waged the War Between the States, under the claim that it was a CIVIL war– i.e. between the citizens of a single sovereign state; and while the victor of any war is entitled to force his opinion on the vanquished, he is NOT the arbiter of historical FACT: and International Law and national sovereignty is determined ONLY the facts of the matter.
In short, one cannot conquer sovereign nations, under a claim of CIVIL war, simply because they happen to WIN: simply forcing a nation to admit legal subordination at gunpoint, doesn’t make TRUE under international law– any more than armed robby is a “gift.”
So before you find fault with my arguments, you might want to try getting your FACTS straight.
Jake Elas
Those interested in this topic may want to look at the daily post SecessionNews.com, begun last July in the midst of this discussion.
Siarlys Jenkins
McCandliss, you’re hopping from one side of your brain to the other without thinking about the distinction.
You cite a statement I made about the PRACTICALITY of secession, then proceed with a tirade about its LEGALITY. There is a difference. If the Confederacy had won the Civil War, secession would have been practically accomplished even if technically illegal, and if secession was constitutionally sound, it would not be rendered one whit more practical in the face of a federal conquest.
The PRACTICAL point was that if an independent sovereign state at the mouth of the Mississippi River cut off or infringed trade by farmers upstream, there would be a war to settle the difference. There are many other practical, geographic considerations of a similar nature. They will trump all the high-flown philosophical rhetoric of any number of dime-store John C. Calhouns. Our state boundaries can only be maintained and adhered to within a union.
Now before you think trashing Abraham Lincoln will make your point, don’t forget who stuffed a sock in Calhoun’s mouth: the Great Democrat, none other than General Andrew Jackson, who announced “The United States is a government, not a league,” and practically twisted Calhoun’s arm with his toast “Our federal union, it must be preserved.” South Carolina almost always wanted to secede, because it wanted out from under the guarantee of “a republican form of government.” The majority of the “white” population didn’t qualify for the franchise until after the Civil War, and nobody who owned less than 20 slaves could serve in the upper house of the legislature. Damned aristocrats.
No state admitted to the union after the original 13 was recognized by discrete action of the previously existing sovereign states. Each was recognized by an act of the federal congress, which also had to approve its constitution. No matter how you may try to twist words, history is real, what’s done is done, and there is no going back to undo it.
Kevin Carson’s analogy to Germany doesn’t hold water either. Germany was neither annexed by conquest, nor did it petition for annexation, nor was it created of whole cloth out of unsettled national territory. It was occupied for a time until the objectives of the war were well established, then returned to a sovereignty it had never merged into any other entity. Now, whether it can secede from the European Union, might be an interesting question, but it depends in part on the nature of the compact creating said union.
Kevin Carson
Sure. I just think there’s a case to be made that they were independent before then, as well, and that the main real change at “independence” was becoming republics and ending their ties of amity to GB.
Brian McCandliss
I won’t argue hearsay regarding what some Founder or other allegedly claimed- it’s irrelevant. The Declaration of Independence for all 13 states is clear that the states are each sovereign, free and independent by mutual recognition.
To wit:
“We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, 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 to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”
So as far as they were concerned, they were each completely self-ruling from that time onward.
Gene Callahan
” The Declaration of Independence for all 13 states is clear that the states are each sovereign, free and independent by mutual recognition.”
And it is just as clear that signing the Constitution ended that independence.
Kevin Carson
Brian: John Adams argued that the colonies were sovereign, independent states from the time of their founding. Under the terms of their several charters, they all bore allegiance to the king–but only to his natural person rather than ex officio as king of Great Britain. He held his crown, in each separate colony, by that colony’s own sovereign act, and under the terms of its charter. So the colonies were actually independent bodies politic, related to each other in the same way that England and Scotland did before the Act of Union.
Some tories put forth the fact that Parliament’s choice of William and Mary held good in the colonies, as proof that the colonies were subordinate to Britain. But Adams argued that the colonies accepted W & M in James II’s stead of their own sovereign will. BTW, there’s some justice to that contention, since the New Englanders overthrew Governor Andros before news ever reached them of William’s invasion.
Brian McCandliss
Siarlys Jenkins said:
“First, while the original 13 colonies might have a claim to secession, most of the remaining states were formed from national territory in accordance with the prescription of the federal constitution. So, outside of the union, they have no right to exist at all.”
It doesn’t work that way. Once a state is recognized as equal by other sovereign states, it becomes likewise sovereign in its own right: for example, the 13 colonies only became sovereign states, because they were recognized as such by the sovereign states of Britain and France; and likewise, each NEW American state was recognized by the original 13, as an equal to themselves.
So there’s no way to say that new states are any less sovereign than the original 13. Anyone who says otherwise, simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about– and that includes one Abe Lincoln.
Kevin Carson
Siarlys Jenkins: The fact that the people of a territory start functioning as a sovereign body politic under the supervision or with the approval of another power doesn’t necessarily contradict their absolute sovereignty. Occupied Germany was reduced to something like “territorial” status under Allied control after WWII, and Iraq was treated similarly under a provisional government. Yet they are legally regarded as fully sovereign today. Under U.S. law, a new state is recognized as fully equal to the original 13 in every sense, when it effectively ratifies the Constitution and is admitted to the Union. Since the nature of the sovereignty of the original 13 is not explicitly specified, there’s nothing inherently self-contradictory about a federal league of independent sovereigns “midwiving” a new equal sovereign body politic (on a previously stateless territory) into their membership.
Brian McCandliss
John Médaille said:
“Kirkpatrick, the best form of ‘direct action’ in behalf of secession is to secede. Not politically, of course, because that is not possible at the moment.”
It certainly is, as proven in Iran– when Twitter and video-phone proved mightier than the sword.
Likewise, gone are the days when a bearded baboon-president can spout a few lines of gibberish about “fourscore and seven years” etc., and invade sovereign nations without a peep of protest, since he ALSO jails anyone who speaks out against him for “helping a rebellion.”
No, today the fed can’t get away with using force, without first presenting proof of their authority; and they HAVE no proof of legal authority against any state, since they HAVE no legal authority.
Brian McCandliss
“Now, as for practicality, everyone with half a brain knew in 1861 that the southern states couldn’t simply go their separate ways peacefully.”
I agree; if you only have half a brain you’d think that.
However anyone with a WHOLE brain, would know that each state was fully sovereign unto itself ever since 1783– and that NEVER changed by any law.
Half-wits like Lincoln might believe that sovereignty was conjoined like Siamese twins simply because they were part of a “union” of some sort when it they became sovereign, and that “they declared independence from Great Britain, not from each other”– which made absolutely ZERO sense, since the colonies HAD no national dependence on each other to begin with– and they likewise declared themselves each to be sovereign states, each with the power to declare wars, conduct treaties, and “do all of those other things with independent states may by right do.”
So Lincoln just pulled this “perpetual nation” out of thin air, and jailed anyone who told the truth– i.e. he created an empire of lies, just like any fascist dictator.
New states were likewise sovereign, since they were recognized as equal to the ORIGINAL states; and states only need to be recognized by EXISTING sovereign states, in order to become sovereign themselves.
American state sovereignty is based on the inalienable right of self-government– NOT on title to real-estate; otherwise the colonies are still the property of Great Britain.
Finally, the “Civil War” didn’t change anything, since it was based on the claim that the states were ALWAYS part of the same nation; so if they were each sovereign nations unto themselves, then so they REMAIN. One can’t say that the war was authorized by rebellion against “the nation,” but then say that it was a nation because the Union won AFTERWARD– that’s a contradiction AND a lie.
So today, we live under an empire that was created by a LIE from 140 years ago– and we continue to LIVE that lie every day.
It’s time to END THE LIE.
THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE.
Siarlys Jenkins
I live in a state that almost seceded from the union to get out from under the federal fugitive slave act, so I know the issue is not all about the right to hold people in slavery. But, there are two weaknesses.
First, while the original 13 colonies might have a claim to secession, most of the remaining states were formed from national territory in accordance with the prescription of the federal constitution. So, outside of the union, they have no right to exist at all. In fact, the original inhabitants signed treaties with The United States. If the United States no longer has jurisdiction, they can legally take it all back. The rental income would be much more lucrative than running a few casinos. Practically, they might have difficulty enforcing their writ, but there was something said here about whether secession is legal. Not for 37 states it isn’t.
Texas? True, Texas did enter the union as an independent state, by treaty. However, unless the treaty contained a provision authorizing it to secede, it waived that right. It was awfully anxious to affiliate at the time. Its government was semi-bankrupt, it was in constant danger of being retaken by Mexico, In fact, The United States fought a war to establish the boundaries of Texas at the Rio Grande, so, no, its too late for them to secede either. Possibly the Hawaiian monarchy has a claim to a come-back, but nobody else in Hawaii does. They are either there by permission of the Queen, or of the United States.
Virginia and Tennessee were both proved to be hypocrites about secession. First, the state government said “We don’t like what the feds are doing, we secede,” then they tell western Virginia and eastern Tennessee “we took a vote and you have to abide by the majority.” Yeah? What about y’all abiding by the outcome of the federal election. If you can secede, we can secede. It was never a war between the states, as Clement Vallandigham and Newton Knight demonstrated. My great great grandfather was Lt. Colonel of the 11th Tennessee Cavalry — United States Army.
Also, as far as constitutional legality goes, after the war, the Fourteenth Amendment established something called “citizens of the United States,” and that pretty well closes off secession too, along with a few other clauses. That amendment would not have been passed except in the aftermath of a bloody civil war, and neither would the 13th or 15th, but praise God we were put through what we had to be put through to adopt them all. Read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.
Now, as for practicality, everyone with half a brain knew in 1861 that the southern states couldn’t simply go their separate ways peacefully. We would be continuing to fight each other over every inch of westward expansion. Best to just get it over with. One of Lincoln’s problems was that farmers in the midwest weren’t going to stick with the war effort if he couldn’t open up the Mississippi River for them to ship their grain to market by barge. The railroads were gouging them. That is one reason the union army had to clear the Mississippi, taking New Orleans and Vicksburg, even faster than it had to take Richmond. Fortunately, its more competent generals were out west, although the best of the lot, George Thomas of Virginia, was not put into command nearly as early as he should have.
There is no state in this union which could function as an independent entity without living on sufferance of its neighbors, or going to war with them. Can you imagine Illinois and Missouri going to war against New Orleans, and telling everybody in between “you’re either with us or against us”? Tolls at every state line on the Union Pacific Railway? It’s a sweet pathetic fantasy, it might be a way to let some steam off, but it ain’t going to happen.
At best, secession might begin a revolt against federal tyranny which, if it rolled all across the country, could be the vehicle for reconstructing the entire nation. Only, none of us can be confident that what emerges would be any more to our liking. Whatever we end up with, its all of us or none of us.
Kevin Carson
I’d scale it down a lot further than that, CJ Foley.
In just about any city with a population in or above the low tens of thousands, the local government is a showcase property of the local real estate industry.
In Fayetteville, Ark., three years ago Mayor Dan Coody (who’d been elected by the “green” faction, on a “smart growth” platform, to rein in the real estate interests) proposed a one cent sales tax to fund expansion of the overburdened sewer system. Now, the cause of the problem was the new housing developments and strip malls springing up all over the place, built primarily by billionaire real estate developer and Trump-wannabe Jim Lindsey. But Coody said the “only alternatives” were the sales tax or a 30% increase in sewer rates. That’s the way it works, see: he tells us what the “only alternatives” are, and we good little voters choose from what’s put on our plates. Increasing sewer hookup fees to cover the costs Lindsey and the other hogs at the trough were imposing on the system was never even considered.
The voters, convinced by Coody’s hint that “out-of-town” shoppers would bear much of the burden (it’s always easier to cheat a greedy man), voted for the tax.
Then, next year, sewer impact fees came up as a local ballot issue. You’ll never convince me the timing and the wording of the proposal weren’t a deliberate strategy of the real estate interests. Since the proposal came after the voters had already approved the sales tax, and not before, they were obviously likely to reject it as double taxation. And they’d have been a lot more likely to approve it if it had been proposed as a *replacement* for the sales tax they were already paying.
Now, the “progressive” element in Fayetteville have a better shot than anywhere else in NW Arkansas. In most other towns, whatever the good ol’ boys want just gets quietly passed without a peep of public debate. In Fayetteville, a college town with a large contingent of “back to the land” hippies who settled there in the ’70s, there is at least grass-roots organizing and heated debate over everything–before the good ol’ boys win. And Coody was the fair-haired boy of the “progressives,” put forth as David to the Chamber of Commerce’s Goliath. His election was the closest thing to a victory the “progressive” and “green” coalition was or will be ever likely to see. And in the end, he was just another greenwashed good ol’ boy.
At the level of NW Arkansas as a whole, the Washington-Benton County area (with a population of several hundred thousand) has an organization called the Northwest Arkansas Council. It’s a nominally private shadow government, made up of representatives of local corporate powerhouses like Wal-Mart, Tyson, J.B. Hunt (and of course the above-mentioned Jim Lindsey), along with ex officio representatives of local governments and the University. It’s primary purpose, civic-minded lot that they are, is to promote the building of regional “infrastructure” for “economic growth,” and all kinds of other “government-business partnership” (IOW, line up at the trough, corporate welfare piggies!). I think there’s a similar organization in just about every metropolitan area in the country of the same size or larger.
For decades, regional elites had attempted to railroad through a regional airport to serve their interests, only to have it fail when it came up for a vote. In 1990, the NWA Council changed its strategy. Like a filthy sneak-thief skulking about under cover of darkness, it quietly lobbied five city and two country governments to create a regional airport authority. You’d expect such an authority to be the topic of extensive public debate, considering that under state law such authorities have power to condemn land and levy taxes, and are immortal corporations so long as any two member governments remain parties to them. You’d expect wrong. The seven local governments, under secret pressure from the REAL GOVERNMENT of Northwest Arkansas, voted to create the authority as an “emergency ordinance”–without any prior notice, multiple readings, or chance for public debate. The Northwest Arkansas Council, in partnership with the NWA Regional Airport Authority, immediately began a campaign to suppress opposition. “Leadership Fayetteville,” an elite annual seminar in the city Chamber of Commerce, devoted its primary focus to how to combat the “anti-growth” faction that had “hijacked” Fayetteville. Shortly after, under pressure from local movers and shakers, a popular radio DJ and the editor of the Northwest Arkansas Times were fired (they’d both been active proponents of a public vote on the airport issue). In the end, the airport was railroaded through. We now have a regional airport at Highfill, serving the interests of Tyson, Wal-Mart and J.B. Hunt.
God damn the people who did this to us. God damn them to hell.
And so it goes. Democracy doesn’t work, at least not above the level of face-to-face direct democracy. The problem is, regardless of how formally democratic the system of representation is, no matter how “progressive” the controls on campaign finance (or even public financing), government is by its nature a centralized machine whose day-to-day operations must be carried out by a few people. And by the nature of things, there will be a close affinity between them and similar elites running the corporate economic system, and other centralized institutional networks like the big charitable foundations and universities. By the nature of things, the average person has only limited energy and attention to devote to public issues, and to keeping an eye on those engaged in public business. The average person, by necessity, will always devote the overwhelming share of his energy and attention to work, family, and friends. But for the insiders actually running the large institutions, the politics and policies of those institutions ARE their work and friends. So the insiders, and the small circles of wealthy outsiders whose pecuniary interests depend most heavily subsidies and protections, will always have an advantage in time, energy, attention, information, and agenda control. Democracy is and must be a sham, because the public’s attention will always be the first to wander.
At the national level, Obama is probably the closest thing to a “progressive” president ever likely to be elected–a sort of national Dan Coody, in fact. A friend of Alinsky and “community organizer,” he came across last year as a sort of Jerry Brown knockoff, the outside-the-box alternative to Hillary Clinton (who was almost a parody of establishment managerial liberalism). And what has he done?
He’s pursued a Wall Street bailout policy that’s a direct continuation of Paulson’s version of TARP, based on the uber-Hamiltonian project of using taxpayer money to (at least partially) reinflate the value of the plutocracy’s investment assets.
He’s pushed through a “stimulus” whose primary goal is to restore the suicidal and pathological economic model of running overbuilt industry at full capacity (when can only be done, given its present capacity, through consumer debt and planned obsolescence–the latter extending to actually paying people, via the latest “Cash for [insert name of subsidized industry here]” program, to throw stuff away and replace it. Well, THAT’s certainly a sustainable economic model. Should work out great, as long as the government can afford to run a $2 trillion deficit indefinitely.
He’s designed a “progressive” healthcare reform whose overall paramaters were fixed at the beginning by the insurance and pharma industries.
CJ Foley
Our current beltway government is peopled by ordinary humans who are subject to the same moral and intellectual weaknesses that we all have. It’s obvious that these weaknesses affect what they do on a day-to-day basis, same for us peons. Our Founders didn’t flinch from the reality, which is why we have/had 3 governing peer agencies, Congress, judiciary, and president. But that separation has been diluted by responses to external/internal events, plain evil intent, and lack of attention to detail. The Law of Unintended Results is real. This reality is not insuperable when the problems are small, since small problems get small address. But with a huge population and huge economy, the ‘ordinary’ problems are large, and they cannot be adequately addressed by a few hundred or thousand ‘governing’ humans (who may be unaware of their weakness, and will never admit their fallibility and sinful tendencies). So the solution is not to solve our current problems, but to cut the problems down to our size so they can be solved. Hello secession or something like it. There is an economy of size, so maybe 4 or 5 federated republics based perhaps on geographical contiguity would be best. 52 is too many independents, but would be suggested by libertarians. Another alternative is to continue to eat our locust leaves until the Beltway Cyclops arrives
CJ Foley
It’s obvious that secession or something like it, is the only way to escape the Beltway Leviathan, our frankenstein monster. In theory, all House members could be replaced entirely at the 2010 election, and all senators and our current black god over a longer cycle. But that’s not going to happen. Gerrymandering and citizen inattention assure continuing election of the same zombies. Congressmen don’t write or read the bills they approve, leaving that to the 25-35 year old staff and various ‘helpful’ pressure groups. The elected are intent only on exercise of power, getting re-elected, and personal profits to maintain their place on the thrones. They are outraged that many folk were so awake at the townhalls, and if that trend continues, they will do all they can (direct and indirect) to derail us from changing the structure in some way. They are/will be helped by the various pressure groups who get federal money to maintain their power behind the thrones. These are the whole spectrum of political/economic groups (democrats, republicans, socialists, businesses, education, unions, ad nauseam, aligned to get funded by the taxpayer. But it’s not hopeless, more to come in another post
Kirkpatrick Sale
Harold Thomas: The performances in Vermont in the early 1990s were billed as debates, but were not entirely so, especially because Frank Bryan was not then, and is not now, a secessionist, and that was the side he was supposed to represent. And in any case that could not be called a “serious argument”; it was more like “what-if” game-playing.
And the Second Vermont Republic did NOT emerge from those “debates.” It was begun a decade later by Naylor and colleagues, stemming from other circumstances and ideas, and still exists as one of the stronger secessionist groups today (Vermontrepublic.net).
Harold Thomas
“For example, that New York Times story on ‘Secessionist Talk’ declared that there has been “no serious argument since the Civil War [sic]on behalf of a legal basis for a state’s secession.” Completely wrong. In 1998 David Gordon brought together ten eminent scholars to offer as serious, not to mention academic, a set of arguments for secession (Secession, State,and Liberty) as there could be.”
The modern secession movement dates back even farther. Frank Bryan and Vermont Supreme Court Justice John Dooley ran a series of debates in 1990-1991 on whether Vermont should consider secession as part of that state’s bicentennial observance. From those debates, a secessionist movement has emerged (Thomas Naylor’s Second Vermont Republic and the publication Vermont Commons).
Kevin Carson
jh: According to Madison in No. 39 of The Federalist, the states as sovereign entities, and specifically the separate peoples of those states as composing so many separate bodies politic, were the parties to the Constitution. Therefore the majority of the public in each state decided for the whole. We saw in the Whiskey Rebellion how Washington and Hamilton dealt with anti-federal dissent after ratification.
I think a majority of people in most states opposed the Federalist project in 1787-89, but because of property-weighted suffrage rules the ratifying conventions were packed with Federalists whose economic interests favored a stronger union. At any rate, it’s an absolute certainty that at least significant minorities opposed the Constitution in every state.
What’s more, the Federalists went beyond mere legality into coercing states where a majority had clearly opposed ratification. After Rhode Island initially voted against the Constitution, Congress threatened to impose punitive tariffs on the State. Finally, two years into Washington’s first administration, and threatened with the prospect of rotting merchant fleets, R.I. capitulated to blackmail and voted to join the Union.
Bill Meyer
So JH disagrees with there being a legal right to secede. No doubt he’s in plentiful company in the land of the government-educated sheep. “Legal right” – defined as “my magic piece of paper says I own you”. No wonder we’re so screwed up…we collectively believe in myths and magic paper giving one set of folks ownership and control over others. No matter, what’s left of the republic is in trouble anyway due to demographics and currency debasement. It could get “interesting”.
jh
I totally disagree with his main argument. I don’t think there is a Legal right to secede at all no matter how much many people wish it were there.
Still for such a ” localist” type blog I am sort of amazed no one follows this to the logical conclusion. What do you do with the people that don’t want to SECEDE.
This is not 1860. No doubt in 1860 one could over all over the South and not find one person that voted for Lincoln. Or one could go to the North and not find hardly anyone that voted for one of the more Southern folks. While it is tempting to talk about Red States versus Blue States that is not really the reality. Just look at the County by County maps. Heck you have often sometimes massive disvision in the same county. In Louisiana ( A very Red State) John McCain actually gained votes versus Bush in the 2008 election. Still it was not an replay of 1860. The final totals were Mccain 1,148,275 votes and Obama 782,989.
Lets say that in some alternative world Governor Perry of Texas says We ARE OUT OF HERE. Come down here and kill Texans to prevent us from leaving. We dare you!!
The question that amazingly goes unnoticed most of the time is what the New “President” of Texas and his supporters going to do to those that are not thrilled with this. Round them up? Put them in Jail? Confiscate their property and put them in exile? Execute then as traitors? Would “President Perry” follow the example of a former Governor that sent the military to terrorize German Texas Unionists? WHo is going to be in charge of resotring order in lets say more liberal Austin.Really for all this secession talk and people that like to talk about it I think they owe us a little explanation of how they intend that to work.
Shelby Foote made an excellent observation. Before the Civil War it was correct to say the United States “are”. After the Civil War people said the United States “is”. That is partly because both soliders from the North and South got out of their little towns and actually saw their country. They had a more of a sense of ownership over the entire thing. As Foote stated the Civil War basically made us from a “are” than a “is”.
If anything this outlook has become more dominate and is not going away
Brian McCandliss
The problem with the entire state sovereignty/secession discussion, is that everyone ignores the legal issue entirely, and simply assumes that the federal government will ALLOW it: they entirely IGNORE 4-year war AGAINST secession which left over a million dead (which would be TEN million in modern numbers), and the 148 years of federally-written history ever since.
Any discussion of secession, must first address the legal issue, and prove that secession is not illegal, and each state is popularly sovereign.
manhuntzdog
Hi,
I’m new here, just trying to find my way around this forum and also saying hello to everyone.
N. P. West
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Medaille. Here in Vermont those who support secession are largely on the Left yet back local economies, decentralization, and a “small is beautiful” philosophy. Maybe the best way to effectuate change is to continue using this strategy to undermine the big government-big business axis which dominates so many aspects of our lives. Who knows, maybe a coalition of conservative agrarians, distributists, and communitarians could work with progressive Greens to revitalize localism around the country. This might in turn neutralize the impulse for secessionism in certain quarters.
Brian McCandliss
“Secession is not a big deal. It will not lead to chaos, or ‘every man for himself’.”
This was Lincoln’s ridiculous “Chicken-Little” argument for waging war against secession, i.e. saying that it would lead to “anarchy,” and other ridiculous notions that it would cause every party to secede whenever it lost a vote, no matter how petty.
It’s like Bill Clinton when he said “I could let you keep your money, but you wouldn’t spend it right.” Lincoln didn’t go to war over slavery, because they states didn’t secede over slavery: they seceded because Lincoln wouldn’t let them have slavery in the territories, but they couldn’t gain that by seceding either. So nothing changed, other than that the South would stop paying federal taxes.
So basically there we have it: the federal government exists not as a servant, but a master who demands tribute– no different from King George III.
stevemcgee99
Secession is not a big deal. It will not lead to chaos, or ‘every man for himself’.
Just as it’s in the best interest of people to end associations that are no longer beneficial, it’s been in people’s interests to enter into new coalitions.
To say that secession is inherently bad is to assume that things never change, and that a decision in the past is infallible and must never be overturned.
Brian McCandliss
InfidelRobert;
the point is that Chase was 100% wrong in Texas v. White, and this needs to be challenged before the Supreme Court in order to prove that every state remained sovereign under the Constitution, and did not form a single nation: this was made clear in Federalist No. 39 alone, wherein Madison expressly assured the people of the states that they would be “forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation“. A federal republic is even defined as a “perpetual conferacy” of sovereign nations– but not as an indissoluble one; and accordingly, there nothing in the Constitution (or anywhere else) about it being “indissoluble–” again, this was entirely a Republican revision.
If this can be challenged and overturned in the US Supreme Court based on the facts, then federal laws will be subject to nullification by state referendum.
InfidelRobert
Sean S> “So until you can prove that everyone’s just dying to rip the whole contract up, the onus is on you. You can’t confuse irritation, or disagreement with present politics, as indicative of everyone wanting to storm the Bastille for secession.”
Sir, the people you’re arguing against are not saying the majority want to secede. They are saying that secession is legal and can be done peacefully as was admitted by Chase in White v Texas. McCandliss has shown this to be true and sustains the onus.
Clifford Theis in an essay entitled “Secession Is in Our Future” writes:
“The US law of secession is thought to have been decided by the US Supreme Court in White v. Texas, following the Civil War. The actual matter to be decided was relatively insignificant. The Court used the occasion to issue a very broad decision. Chief Justice Chase, speaking for the Court, said,
The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Notice that the second sentence appears to totally contradict the first sentence.
The first sentence I just quoted invokes words such as “perpetual,” and in so doing may create the impression that the Supreme Court decreed that no state could ever secede from the Union. But, on careful reading, the relationship between Texas and the other states of the Union is merely “as indissoluble as the union between the original States.” In other words, Texas, having been a nonoriginal state, has no greater right of secession than do the original states. As to how states might secede, the second sentence says, “through revolution or through consent of the States.”
As to why a state might secede, either through revolution or through consent, Chief Justice Chase presciently discusses the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution, which reserve to the states and to the people thereof all powers not expressly granted to the federal government, and that the design of the Union, implicit in the very name “United States,” is the preservation of the states as well as of the Union:
the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government.
The so-called United States of America ceases to exist when the political majority of the country attempts to rule the entire country as a nation instead of as a federal government. In such a circumstance, the “indestructible union of indestructible states” of which the Court speaks is already dissolved.”
http://mises.org/story/3427#part3
If what is happening is something other than the federal republic specified in the COUS, then there is no longer a federal union. We only kow-tow to Uncle to save our hides. He will kill us if we try to assert our freedom and sovereignty. So then, let us raise our cups of cheer and toast to Uncle’s poor health. May he perish quickly.
roy
said the free interprise system to the big gouvt fed”anything u can do i can do better,i can do anything better than u”that ncludes fixin roads,carin,4the poor,personel protection,n craeting an econmic system that provides the maxamim amount of wealth 4 the highest number of people of any system this planit has ever witnessed.secession would allow us 2do this the fed cannot
John Médaille
Kirkpatrick, the best form of “direct action” in behalf of secession is to secede. Not politically, of course, because that is not possible at the moment. But it is possible to work on structures of local self-reliance: to grow one’s own food, to provide services to one’s neighbors in local exchange, to buy locally, to set up local currencies, etc.
I don’t think secession will come through a political process; rather, it will come from the absence of a political process. No matter how good the arguments for secession, no federal authority will recognize them. But the time is coming when nobody will recognize federal authority.
Brian McCandliss
“Now let’s get on to a little action and organizing: the front porch is the place to talk to friends and neighbors about what to do next.”
This first requires accurate information, since people have to be on the same track. Currently, people think that the USA is a single nation, and that secession/sovereignty is therefore illegal– after all, St. Lincoln said so, and people believe whatever their government tells them; and if it does so by force, then they believe it even more.
Until the people choose to learn the truth– i.e. that each state is a sovereign nation by law, and that a federal republic is simply a voluntary association of them, like the UN– then the people will remain divided and opposed… just the way that the oligarchy wants them.
So we have to start by informing people– and challenging the hypocrites who perpetuate the falsehoods. Chief among these is Akhil Reed Amar at Yale University, who claims that even though Lincoln and the Republicans were wrong in their legal claims, they were “right where it counted,” since Amar claims that the Constitution formed the sovereign states into a single super-state.
This is an outright lie, and until they’re challenged then they remain unopposed. Accurate decisions require accurate information.
Kirkpatrick Sale
An extraordinary response, and for the most part intelligent and learned. I am grateful.
Now let’s get on to a little action and organizing: the front porch is the place to talk to friends and neighbors about what to do next. The time is ripe, never riper.
My website may be a help.
Joshua
I believe that the secession movement is the ONLY way there will be peace in this land.
Our values are not the values of the elite, of the West Coast nor the East Coast.
New York and Hollywood and Chicago are NOT representative of our people nor our hopes for the future.
God bless the secession movement.
Brian McCandliss
Actually I have to question the logic of those who use the term “sovereignty” simply to assert the 10th Amendment– like those in Oklahoma– since the 10th Amendment only allows states to appeal their claims to the US Supreme Court, and therefore is an issue of “state’s rights.”
Sovereignty, meanwhile, is what allows the state to overrule the Court if they believe it is in error– or if the case never comes before the court. Without sovereignty, states are always at the mercy of the federal government– which is then free to ignore the Constitution as it pleases. With sovereignty, however, a state can likewise do as it wills, as with any other sovereign state like England or France.
John Médaille
Secessionists may find this interesting:
http://www.newsok.com/house-bypasses-governors-veto-to-claim-oklahomas-sovereignty/article/3366762
Brian McCandliss
Sean S. wrote:
“So until you can prove that everyone’s just dying to rip the whole contract up, the onus is on you.”
That’s not the issue, which you once miss entirely. The issue is about the right to secede– which current federal policy denies, illegally, to the tune of the deaths of over a quarter-million people whom the federal government killed for resisting its false claims of national authority… and threatens to do likewise to anyone who tries it again.
Now unless you condone the federal murder of innocents, YOU have the onus to show that the states aren’t sovereign nations by law, but are instead part of a larger sovereign nation as Lincoln’s party claimed… and still do.
So let’s see it.
Kevin Carson
Sean S.: You yourself “evidently missed” the fact that the original post was written by somebody who hardly exemplifies Red State know-nothingism. Kirk Sale is about as far from the Palin/Joe the Plumber axis as you can get. But I don’t want to turn this into a more-Leftist-than-thou dickwaving contest, so I’ll just concede that academic postmodernism trumps the hippy-dippy granola stuff when it comes to left-wing street cred. Happy?
I wasn’t thinking so much of local welfare states, any more than I was thinking of local sweatshop economies patterned on Jack Abramoff’s Marianias Islands. I was thinking of Proudhonian agro-industrial communes, Kropotkinian/Borsodian decentralized production technology, community workshops a la Karl Hess and Colin Ward, neighborhood associations for mutual aid, and the like.
As for the drug war and all the rest of it, I think that issue dovetails with a point I raised earlier: that the question of secession may become moot, as de facto secession results from the hollowing out of central states. And local economies will be cut off from the state-corporate nexus and turn to relocalized and sustainable methods under pressure of necessity, as the rising cost of subsidized inputs (Peak Oil) and rising demand for them by corporate welfare queens results in a “fiscal crisis of the state.” Likewise the growing unenforceability of “intellectual property” means that corporate capitalism becomes unable to realize profit on a growing portion of use value. The profits of the software and entertainment industries, publishing, etc., will be gutted by the P2P revolution. The portion of the prices of goods made up of proprietary design, brand-name markup, and other forms of embedded rent on artificial property rights, will implode. In short, corporate capitalism is becoming unsustainable. And when it happens, local government will simply lack the resources for fighting the drug war, just as it will lack the resources to enforce zoning and licensing laws and suppress household microenterprise on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce.
When gasoline and diesel fuel are over $12/gallon, and major portions of the Interstate decay from lack of maintenance funds and are abandoned as unusable, as described by Jim Kunstler, economies will be relocalized under pressure of necessity. When the Whirlpool distribution chain dries up, the better-equipped garage workshops will be custom machining replacement parts to keep appliances running. When produce is snatched off the tables as fast as it appears at the farmers’ market, market gardeners will be expanding production as fast as they can cultivate new ground. The workshop hobbyists and market gardeners will be trading their services with neighborhood seamstresses, home microbakeries, and the like, through LETS systems. And fiscally exhausted local governments simply won’t be able to stop it, no matter how much the usual gang of Rotary Club yahoos vent their impotent rage.
Bill Meyer
Re: Sean S.
Wasn’t implying you personally were for violent coercion Sean, but looking at the history of the Federal Government, that’s exactly what you can guarantee for any state wishing to peacefully leave the union. (Assuming the beast still has fight left in it)
Many folks who consider secession silly, ridiculous, beyond the pale, etc. are usually the same individuals bowing down to the cult of Lincoln, wanting their strongman Dem or Repub to “keep them safe” and “keep us together”. I don’t know where you come down on this, but I’ve had enough. It’s next to impossible to throw out a federal clown. Smaller more responsive local and regional governance is preferable, IMO.
I would also ask why any country would want to hang on to a state that DOESN’T want to be part of the union? (unless tyranny runs through its collective national veins) If a contract can be drawn up, it can be broken. Bless those who wish to stay in the union, AND those who wish to leave.
BTW, my tone is NOT RANTING….I’M NOT RANTING!!!!!!!
Sincerely,
Bill Meyer – resident of the scary-blue “People’s Republic of Oregon”, recovering from my government education.
Sean S.
“Sean, it’s also everyone else’s choice, too. I would caution against begging for the violent coercion of an even larger federal “massah” to keep the union together in order to protect you from your fellow “snookered dingbats”. If the feds are so desirable, you would think all would be tripping over themselves to join.”
I don’t know whats more ridiculous; misappropriating old slave terms or suggesting I’m for federal violence. And I’m unaware that anyone in recent years has run of an avowedly pro-secessionist platform on a state or local level and won, or has that a bloc has voted for such in any state legislature in recent memory. So until you can prove that everyone’s just dying to rip the whole contract up, the onus is on you. You can’t confuse irritation, or disagreement with present politics, as indicative of everyone wanting to storm the Bastille for secession.
“I’m curious – which hoary old cliches no longer apply in the constitution, bill of rights, and declaration of independence?”
Oh please. Simply ranting on about George the III and a bunch of misappropriated cliches from the Revolution does not make you the true blue defender of the Bill of Rights nor an expert on ConLaw.
Bill Meyer
Sean S. writes: “Actually it is my choice since I happen to live in this country, and happen to live in a state (South Carolina) that is too often the hotbed of this sort of madness.”
Sean, it’s also everyone else’s choice, too. I would caution against begging for the violent coercion of an even larger federal “massah” to keep the union together in order to protect you from your fellow “snookered dingbats”. If the feds are so desirable, you would think all would be tripping over themselves to join.
I’m curious – which hoary old cliches no longer apply in the constitution, bill of rights, and declaration of independence?
Sean S.
“The difference is that the states are sovereign nations by law: and so their reasons for seceding are irrelevant, since it’s they’re choice not yours. ”
Actually it is my choice since I happen to live in this country, and happen to live in a state (South Carolina) that is too often the hotbed of this sort of madness. And so yes, their reasons for seceding are highly relevant. I’m not going to let a bunch of dingbats snooker where I work and live with a bunch of hoary old cliches about the Revolutionary War.
Brian McCandliss
Sean S.:
“No, people are talking about seceding mostly to avoid the heinous burden of Federal income taxes, random nonsense about the states rights, and an assorted sundry items that would not change if the geographical boundaries were to be redrawn.”
Yeah, that’s exactly what George III said about the colonies too. The difference is that the states are sovereign nations by law: and so their reasons for seceding are irrelevant, since it’s they’re choice not yours. The Republican myth about “secession being illegal” has long since been de-bunked, since nothing is illegal for a sovereign nation regarding its policy.
Comments are closed.