Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Jack Hunter
When Texas Gov. Rick Perry said last month that his state had the right to secede from the United States, liberals scoffed, laughing at the mere suggestion.
When polls showed that one third of Texans believed in the right of secession, one liberal blogger said it was further proof of “just how whacked out Republicans are becoming during these days of their political exile.”
When various states introduced sovereignty resolutions, including South Carolina and Oklahoma, liberals considered it childish posturing; the Charleston City Paper’s Greg Hambrick wrote, S.C.’s legislature was just “stomping their feet in dissatisfaction” with the Obama administration.
For many, the question of American secession was settled once-and-for-all by Abraham Lincoln’s military victory against the South. Not so, writes Kirkpatrick Sale, author and director of the Mulberry Institute, a pro-secession think tank: “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.”
Sale raises a good point. If the Founding Fathers had lost the American Revolution to Great Britain, would the colonial’s quest to secede from England have been decided forever, all because of a military loss? The idea that the U.S. could still be an outpost of the British Empire is one that many today would find as laughable as some find secession.
Consider the secessionist movements around the world the U.S. has supported in just the last few decades. When the Soviet Union collapsed, and its 15 satellite nations declared their independence, America cheered. Our military intervention in the Balkans in the 1990s found the U.S. on the side of the Albanian secessionists. On the American Left, support for Tibet’s secession from China remains a popular cause célèbre.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Hey Monorprise,
The way I learned it was that Lincoln and the Union did not begin to fight until the Confederacy declared war on the Union by firing at Fort Sumter. In a strictly legal sense the war was not fought because of secession but because of the aggression of South Carolina.
Aside from that little quibble I agree with most of what you said.
Good Post
Sam
It would be nice to have a comprehensive list of every vial institution of the Federal government and how to quickly disable/cripple them in the event of a 2nd State rebellion, should it become militarily necessary.
I don't mean to be an Alarmist or Warmonger here I'm simply saying that preparation is prudent because ultimately as the Federal government Demonstrated in the “civil war” authority is derived from the sword not the people.
Therefore if they follow the same patter of non-republican(system not party) logic then the States must be armed and organized to resist that government as such that the sword they(the States) control is superior to the sword of the federal governments welds without them. That means it would be nice if we had a list of things that need to be done to cripple the Federal governments ability to again make War upon we the people and our States if we ever faced that situation again. Only then could we restore that check on federal authority on the terms the federal government established.(force)
That being said, the south's biggest mistake was to assume that Lincoln and the north had the honor to respect their natural and inalienable rights to self determination and let them go peacefully, that is why the southern States withdrew their congressional delegations(leaving Congress in the overwhelming domination of their political enemies) who no longer had a right to be U.S. Congressional delegates of non-U.S. States. They should have kept them there and force congress to either kick them out effectively declaring they were no longer States, or used them to obstructed and deny any and all federal efforts to wage war on their State, while at the same time making their states impassioned plee for liberty and justice.
They could have used them congressmen to obstruct federal efforts, and form constitutional sympathy / wisdom bonds with other congressmen reminding them that to deprive our people of our rights is to give up the same rights yourself.
Ultimately the trick is to convince theses people that they don want to keep us around, against our will, that they don't want to live with us. That is a task a irritant and tireless minority can do quite effectively, make people not want to live with them.
I followed the link for the Iowa bill info, and read the comments there, and saw a very astute comment made by someone yesterday that I want to share, (though I have taken the liberty of fixing minor spelling / punctuation errors.) This poster said everything that I too wanted to say in response to an earlier comment:
"I love Lori Lee's comments; they explain everything that is wrong in this country. As a citizen of Iowa, I wish she gave us the name of her state senator. Let me see if I got this right: the senator says that the bill is enthusiastically supported by the citizens, but does not have enough support in the legislature, so he cannot support the bill at this time.
Now there is a man of courage and convictions, a man of real backbone, a man who should be removed from office as soon as possible."
The day I start seeing our States refuse Unconstitutional federal mandates, regardless of what that infamous Supreme court has to say about it, is the day that I will believe they are actually serious.
I propose organizing the people. The legislatures often have their priorities wrong, and we "the people" need to set them right.
Those who are actively posting articles here should submit information to Michael as to where they are, so that they can be contacted for potential leadership positions in a grass-roots movement.
Michael, can you collect contact information for potential leaders? We should divvy this effort up into districts to spread the load. More to follow.....
Jeff: great ideas here. Definitely working finding local and state-level leaders already. Hopefully will be able to pass a lot on to those interested in the near future!
Tenther Radio!
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] “State sovereignty is a long-standing American tradition.” In a partially republished Charleston City Paper commentary by Jack Hunter, Hunter cited Kirkpatrick Sale, “author and director of the Mulberry Institute, a pro-secession think tank,” as saying, “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.” Hunter added, in the part of his commentary reprinted on the Tenth Amendment Center’s website: “Sale raises a good point. If the Founding Fathers had lost the American Revolution to Great Britain, would the colonial’s quest to secede from England have been decided forever, all because of a military loss? The idea that the U.S. could still be an outpost of the British Empire is one that many today would find as laughable as some find secession.” [Tenth Amendment Center website, posted 5/19/09] [...]