1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/9860/secession-is-in-our-future/

Secession Is in Our Future

April 28, 2009 by

Of course, once it becomes clear that a majority of the states — and specifically those that are the most productive — are seceding, the remaining states of Old America will have to consider their options. Would they want to bail out the corporations, the unionized public-school teachers, municipal workers, and the UAW, and the bankrupt states of California and New Jersey, among others, when the burden falls much more heavily onto them? FULL ARTICLE


Ned Netterville April 29, 2009 at 3:47 pm

LetUsHavePeace. I am pretty much in agreement with what Lysander Spooner wrote in his essay entitled NO TREASON, and in the section entitled “The Constitution of No Authority.” (http://jim.com/treason.htm) If one wishes to leave the United States while remaining in territory generally thought to be part of the United States, and do so in conformity with The Constitution, the rule of law, and international law, one might consider moving to the territory claimed by the Republic of Lakotah for the Lakotah people (http://www.republicoflakotah.com/), which encompasses all or parts of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana. The R of L has already seceded, so to speak, by formally reclaiming lands lawfully conceded to the Lakotah people by U.S. federal-government treaty and declaring independence from the United States and its place among the nations of the world. There is no question in my mind that he territory in question was stolen from the Lakotah people by the same federal government that ceded it to them. The R of L is pretty much the brain child of Russell Means, a pretty straight libertarian. A Google search plus its own website provides considerable information on the R of L project, which certainly has my blessings for I do hope it succeeds. I wrote Russell Means and suggested as a means of gaining some revenue for the L of R that the Republic should begin issuing drivers licenses, registering motor vehicles auto tags, passports, and similar paraphernalia that national and state governments usually issue. I, for one, would love to buy an R of L drivers license, plates and passport, and would pay a reasonable amount for same–if the items were of similar quality as those issued by states and nations.

Don Duncan April 29, 2009 at 4:38 pm

LetUsHavePeace: The law & religion are used to convince people that suffering injustice and slavery serve some higher purpose. This combination of faith & force are so effective that we are left with no place in the world to escape. If just one oasis would spring up, it would threaten all the governments of the world. They know that. They will try to crush it. It may look hopeless but not when you consider the alternative of living in slavery. Those who resist on principle are probably less than 1%. That will change when people see a living example.

nicholas gray April 29, 2009 at 8:12 pm

Firstly, my last name is GrAy.
Secondly, the ATO comment does not preclude Hutt River being independent. Our Tax office is notoriously tight-fisted, and does take action against any schemes that might involve tax havens, or which it wants to interpret as a tax scheme.
And the case of Snake Hill is instructive. a lender wanted their property, even though they were ahead on the payments. They were shocked that the law was on the side of the lender, and decided to secede, not expecting success, but expecting publicity. The judge didn’t laugh at them, and decided they had a valid cause under Australian law!
They have kept the property, and they seem to be really independent.

ed smith April 29, 2009 at 8:35 pm

Secession movements may be squashed by World War III. Nothing bring people together like a global crisis.

newson April 29, 2009 at 10:26 pm

to nick gray:
“The Australian Government does not legally or otherwise recognise the so-called ‘Hutt River Province’.”

what’s not clear about this? snake hill is in the same boat. there’s never been any successful secession in australia, and i doubt there will be any for many years, if ever.

nicholas gray April 30, 2009 at 12:05 am

Newson, then you’d better tell Prince Leonard! On the website for Hutt River Principality, he’s informing us that he is applying for UN recognition. He seems to think he is independent!

M.Ross April 30, 2009 at 1:23 am

I agree! And it is apparent that as with other matters of gov’t, few People even read most documents that created the gov’t. Ex:

Prove This Statement Wrong! I submit:

The 17th Amendment Does Not Apply To Any States That Did Not Ratify It – Because They Did Not “Consent” To It, & the Constitution Declares:

“…; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” – Article V last clause.

The “Consent” clause is Written Inviolate by the framers!

No State Ratification Means No Consent, & No 17th Compliance Required! A state must ratify to “Consent” to “be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”! Which states did not consent? Find each state’s 17th amendment ratification documents. Rattle the states, not the feds!

This Is A “Federal Question” Of “Great Public Importance”!

“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).

< http://mrossarr.nixsyspaus.org/17thamend.shtml>

newson April 30, 2009 at 4:58 am

to nick gray:
well, if says so on his website, it must be true. having to pay australian tax is the ultimate arbiter. his abn number says he’s a prince in his own mind only.

America will soon be free May 5, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Wall Street is doing the work of secession, sinking the Fed and soon the federal government will be officially bankrupt. When the dollar is finally rejected and a foreign country assumes currency reserve status, the gamblers will disappear. With few natural resources and hundreds of millions to feed, the U.S. Constitution and the free market will be the only thing that can carry the day.

What our more intelligent elected officials should be doing is preparing gold and silver coinage for circulation. At today’s prices, it wouldn’t take much to get it going. A silver dollar will soon be worth $20.

Sebastian Ronin May 10, 2009 at 10:07 am

Secession, in and of itself, is a consequence; it is not a driver. The historic driver is the entry onto the Post-Peak Oil descent curve. There is a reason why Western central governments are hoarding power, a reason that they have been aware of for some time.

North American Secessionist Congress, October 2010

Brian McCandliss May 9, 2010 at 7:09 am

This article leaves out the most important point: that the states formed the Constitution, not the other way around; and they did so out of their individual status of freedom, sovereignty and independence, as noted in the Paris Peace Treay of 1783– not as a single nation.

The Constitution thereore could not alter this sovereign status, without express statements to that effect, that the people of each state were signing away their sovereignty forever; however it contains no such statements, just some ambiguous language which biased readers interpret to connote such. Therefore without any express abdication of state sovereignty, every state as remained free, sovereign and independent under the Constitution, as before it.
Thus likewise, Texas v. White had no authority to deny any law regarding secession, any more than it could claim such against Britain and France.

History, however, is not written by the victors– since “history,” by definition, is what actually happened; rather, it is suppressed by them, and revised in to make the victor look right, and the vanquished look wrong.
Here, suppression took place with regard to any discussion or analysis of secession-law among authorities, with such discussions being outright censored as “treason” during the war, and grounds for similar treatment afterward– particularly among government-accredited and licensed positions like law or academia, both of which affected all persons of authority. Persons who entertained such public discussions were likewise disenfranchised from positions of elected leadership, being forced to swear oaths of loyalty to the victor in order to hold any elected office. Thus discussion of secession-law was basically suppressed by the victorious regime (ironicalliy in the so-called “land of the free”), until it simply became accepted as popular dogma that secession was illegal.

Even today, however, all “experts” and oficials simply say that the legality of secession was “settled by the war,;” however it wasn’t “settled” but merely dictated, since laws can only be “settled” via proving the original intentions of the actual lawgivers; and as I’ve explained above, these nowhere expressly surrendered the sovereignty of any state— and sovereignty, by its plain nature, cannot be surrendered by anything but express language..

Now to the “brass tacks” of the matter: since state sovereignty was never legally surrendered– merely suppressed by imperialism of the federal government’s claiming national authority over them– then either the states must remain sovereign to this day, or the United States is a dictatorial empire.

Since few Americans will accept the latter, then this leaves only the former– i.e. that every state is sovereign, and legally at liberty to secede at will. This requires only that its people of any state assert that state’s sovereignty under the law; and the federal government will be unable to cite any proper authority to the contrary– and will be unable to censor the truth as it did in 1861-1866, due to the current e-technology: indeed, it seems that “the end of tyranny will come not with a shout, but with a Twitter. ”

The next step now, thus becomes to organize such a movement among the people of ANY state; one will be enough. Current “state sovereignty” movements are anything but, since sovereignty secession is the ultimate right of a sovereign state, and these claim none. On the contrary, true sovereignty is the type enjoyed by nations; rather, these movements refer simply to reserved powers under the 10th Amendment, which is not at all the same– and is likewise futile if a state cannot secede, since the federal majority will have no binding incentive to honor such reservations. Thus “states rights” must include secession– or nothing.

Thus our objective is clear: to find a state willing to assert its sovereignty, and do so.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: