Breaking Away: The Case for Secession

[rambone]

I'm waiting for an explanation of why states, or political subdivisions of any kind, can secede from a nation, but individuals can't secede from a state and set up their own little self-governing mini-nation. Or can they? Inquiring minds want to know.

Sure they can. And the government will probably come and kill them.

 

[dusty88]

Sure they can. And the government will probably come and kill them.

well only after trying to get property tax money first

It is amazing that the government now fears "s**er**g* citizens" more than Islamic terrorists.

 

[HoughMade]

I may make a mistake jumping in here without verifying any sources to refresh my memory but....

where did a state give up their right to self-government? I believe the constitution only grants specific powers to the union.

I think that's the entire debate, most likely. Statists are happy to attribute any power to the central government, whereas the constitution specified only limited powers. The states joined a "union"; they did not give up their self-government.

I said they gave up their SOVEREIGNTY which is the right to self rule without limitation. They did that. No question about it.

 

[T.Lex]

Statists are happy to attribute any power to the central government, whereas the constitution specified only limited powers.

Reality is not that binary. As in...

The states joined a "union"; they did not give up their self-government.

Yes, they did, at least portions of it. They submitted to the notion of "federalism" where the strong central gov't does get to decide certain things, whether the state likes it or not.

IMHO, the first agenda item for any serious secessionist group would be "common defense." How, in practical terms (if not strategic), will the New Union defend itself from the Old Union? If it is not committed to shooting or taking as POW the LEOs that will come a'knockin' then it is not a serious secessionist group. It just isn't.

 

[dusty88]

I said they gave up their SOVEREIGNTY which is the right to self rule without limitation. They did that. No question about it.

That now brings up two different arguments. Did the states give up their right to ever withdraw from the union?

Even if they did, one could easily show that the federal government has violated the agreement by overstepping federal powers.

None of which would really matter if a state ACTUALLY seceded because it would depend on the shift of power and money, the resources put to the issue, and ultimately would be a case of "might makes right".

IMHO, the first agenda item for any serious secessionist group would be "common defense." How, in practical terms (if not strategic), will the New Union defend itself from the Old Union? If it is not committed to shooting or taking as POW the LEOs that will come a'knockin' then it is not a serious secessionist group. It just isn't.

You are assuming that the old union is going to attack a state or a group of states. And I don't know which "LEO"s you would be referring to. If there were a controversial seccession followed by a civil war, there is no question people would take different sides. But the local LEOs would be employed locally. I think the bigger question is first and foremost if the secession even has the support of the power within its own state. But now you are getting into enforcement. I think the MISES institute is having a discussion of whether or not secession could be considered legal, moral, and a general good idea.

If we want to say "it's a bad idea because the big, bad US military is gonna mow you down if you try", then it takes you back to the popular support question. Would the military members go running back home as they did in the first civil war or would they mow down the people of their own former state? I don't know, but I don't expect that's a question anyone is looking into in depth at the moment.

As to "is not serious" well yes, I agree. I don't suspect these boys are planning on signing a confederacy during their seminar

 

[dusty88]

Let me ask the question another way. Does the federal government reach a point where they have violated your rights (the proverbial you, maybe individual or state rights) to an extent that you choose to secede? Or do you deny the right of secession regardless of what moral or immoral actions the federal govenment takes?

 

[T.Lex]

That now brings up two different arguments. Did the states give up their right to ever withdraw from the union?

Yes. The definitive answer to that is, "Yes."

Even if they did, one could easily show that the federal government has violated the agreement by overstepping federal powers.

Really? As decided by whom? That is not as easily shown as you might think.

Part of what the states agreed to is that the SCOTUS gets to decide this kind of stuff.

None of which would really matter if a state ACTUALLY seceded because it would depend on the shift of power and money, the resources put to the issue, and ultimately would be a case of "might makes right".

Indeed. Welcome to the land of international relations.

You are assuming that the old union is going to attack a state or a group of states.

It will because it has.

And I don't know which "LEO"s you would be referring to. If there were a controversial seccession followed by a civil war, there is no question people would take different sides. But the local LEOs would be employed locally. I think the bigger question is first and foremost if the secession even has the support of the power within its own state. But now you are getting into enforcement.

IMHO, the "first responders" to a secession would be the guys sent to serve the levies/tax claims/judgments on the separatists. It won't be the military at first. That will depend on those initial interactions.

I think the MISES institute is having a discussion of whether or not secession could be considered legal, moral, and a general good idea.

Well, the first topic should go pretty quickly. The rest is mental masturbation.

If we want to say "it's a bad idea because the big, bad US military is gonna mow you down if you try", then it takes you back to the popular support question. Would the military members go running back home as they did in the first civil war or would they mow down the people of their own former state? I don't know, but I don't expect that's a question anyone is looking into in depth at the moment.

Well, again, the military thing is a strawman IMHO. IF there is a popular uprising - think Ukraine/Crimea - then it is possible. But that's different than secession - and even less likely.

As to "is not serious" well yes, I agree. I don't suspect these boys are planning on signing a confederacy during their seminar

In which case, it is probably a waste of time, except for people who like sitting around thinking and talking but don't really do much.

 

[T.Lex]

Let me ask the question another way. Does the federal government reach a point where they have violated your rights (the proverbial you, maybe individual or state rights) to an extent that you choose to secede? Or do you deny the right of secession regardless of what moral or immoral actions the federal govenment takes?

IMHO morality has very little to do with it.

I'm more of a practical kind of guy. If the system is broken, what's the better option for fixing it: trying to do so from within the system or ditching the whole thing and people either getting killed or spending a very long time in prison. There really isn't much in-between.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

where did a state give up their right to self-government? I believe the constitution only grants specific powers to the union.

dusty, in all seriousness, who is telling you this? Did you hear this or read it somewhere? I am very curious as to how this nonsense is being filtered into the gun culture.

But, the answer to your question, is that the Constitution prohibits the states from doing lots of things, e.g. Article I, §10, and the Bill of Rights, the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, inter alia.

The States are not sovereign.

 

[rambone]

Fact: Colonies retained power of secession

Did the states give up their right to ever withdraw from the union?

The answer is unequivocally "no," they did not. Colonies explicitly retained the power of secession in the same document that ratified the U.S. Constitution.

I dug this up in our last discussion and received blank stares.

.

Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

Virginia's Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online

We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, — Do declare and make known, —

That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, and that government is instituted by them for their common interest, protection, and security.That the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are essential rights, which every government ought to respect and preserve.

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

New York's Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online

We, the delegates of the people of the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this state, do declare and make known,—

I. That there are certain natural rights of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity,—among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II. That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates, therefore, are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them.

III. That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness. That the rights of the states respectively to nominate and appoint all state officers, and every other power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the Constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Rhode Island's Ratification - The U.S. Constitution Online

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If the system is broken, what's the better option for fixing it:

Well, we could try enforcing the system. It's just crazy enough to work.

Column: A solution to secession fever -- federalism

 

[T.Lex]

The answer is unequivocally "no," they did not. Colonies explicitly retained the power of secession in the same document that ratified the U.S. Constitution.

I dug this up in our last discussion and received blank stares.

In fairness, I'd bailed on that thread by then.

I would be curious as to how many of the states did that.

But, it would be more of an idle curiosity. It seems that Virginia's effort to revert was... uh... prevented. So, I don't think it was an effective reservation of rights.

 

[steveh_131]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

- From a libertarian science fiction novel or something

 

[T.Lex]

Left unsaid is the obligation to defend it. Indeed, that is the corollary to the rights listed.

Without a successful defense, that literary work would have been a footnote in history (if even that).

So, to repeat the cycle will require successful defense.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

From a libertarian science fiction novel or something

No, altering and abolishing with something else they don't believe in:

 

[dusty88]

Left unsaid is the obligation to defend it. Indeed, that is the corollary to the rights listed.

Without a successful defense, that literary work would have been a footnote in history (if even that).

So, to repeat the cycle will require successful defense.

If that's your best argument, then we might as well all give in to tyrants until we can defeat them. Which is really how history has worked, and probably the same way it will work in the US again someday.

I think a few people are hoping it doesn't come to that: that we can use constitutional principles instead of force.

 

[dusty88]

dusty, in all seriousness, who is telling you this?

Nobody is "telling me" anything. I fully admit I didn't refresh or organize my thoughts before I dove into the discussion, but I look at this as a discussion around a pub table, not a presentation to an audience.

Did you hear this or read it somewhere? I am very curious as to how this nonsense is being filtered into the gun culture.

though I share a lot of political views with other gun owners, I don't think "gun culture" has been the basis for any of my views. Probably the other way around.

But, the answer to your question, is that the Constitution prohibits the states from doing lots of things, e.g. Article I, §10, and the Bill of Rights, the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, inter alia.

The federal government is prohibited from "doing lots of things" specifically anything except the enumerated powers.

Oh wait.... they've conveniently ignored that

 

[rambone]

It is clear that "might makes right" when it comes to this subject. The biggest brute determines which founding principles will be preserved and observed.

With this in mind, it is not an exaggeration to say that the union of consent was replaced by a union of force. The republic became an empire. Let's stop being in denial about it.

 

[T.Lex]

If that's your best argument, then we might as well all give in to tyrants until we can defeat them. Which is really how history has worked, and probably the same way it will work in the US again someday.

I think a few people are hoping it doesn't come to that: that we can use constitutional principles instead of force.

Again - that is working WITHIN the system, then.

Is secession some sort of balsa bludgeon to look tough? To appeal to the masses for support to get elected to change things? It seems like a strange strategy to me - although not without some precedent. I think a group of Notre Dame students was elected on a platform of dissolving the student government apparatus.

America is not a tyranny, not by any objective standard. (At least not yet.) And, the people truly have the ability to change things at the ballot box, if "they" want. But, they don't vote. If they don't vote, chances are not good that they'll fight.

It is clear that "might makes right" when it comes to this subject. The biggest brute determines which founding principles will be preserved and observed.

With this in mind, it is not an exaggeration to say that the union of consent was replaced by a union of force. The republic became an empire. Let's stop being in denial about it.

I think the denial is about how the union was formed. After the Articles of Confederation, the "union of consent" was ditched.

I think a better description is "union of million tiny binds."

 

[steveh_131]

No, altering and abolishing with something else they don't believe in:

You think that the revolutionaries who took on Great Britain didn't believe in abolishing a totalitarian government except by voting?

You're so cute sometimes.