Secession: Timing Is Everything

[Eugene V. Debs]

I have to say that I disagree with that notion. Many of the founding fathers were religious, but they clearly recognized the evil that is a government established (enforced) national religion. They fled a land which had a government mandated (enforced) religion, and the 1st Amendment secured that the People have a right to practice whatever religion they wanted, or, more accurately, that the government can not tell people in what manner (or if) a person should worship (their 'god', whether the traditional God, or a statue, or money, or _____). History shows the damage done when the government 'establishes' (enforces) a religion, as ultimately, the government's propensity to accumulate power results in a corruption of the religion from its foundation.

HOWEVER, they also made it abundantly clear that they believed in 'God', and that our rights are derived from Him (God), and NOT FROM MEN. God given rights cannot be taken away, but if you strip God from the foundations of our country, those 'inalienable' rights (only some of which are enumerated in the bill of rights) then become by default 'from men', and are therefore subject to be removed BY MEN.

'Religion' is a term IMHO that attempts to define a set of 'rules' by which men reach out to 'God'. Because of that, it is subject to being twisted and interpreted. Belief in God does not equal 'establishment of religion'. In the context of our government, it is the recognition that there is someone of a higher authority by which men should derive their fundamental rights, and by which government should be limited, in order to protect those rights.

Really? I'm an atheist and I believe we have natural and inalienable rights. And I'm quite certain I'm not the only one. Robert Nozick, probably the most important modern libertarian philosopher, agreed with John Locke's principle of natural rights (Locke basically created the idea and thought they came from God), even though Nozick himself was atheist. Then there's Ayn Rand, who I think sucks big donkey dicks, but a lot of libertarians and conservatives in this country seem to like her-- also an atheist. Also probably plenty of atheists and agnostics on this very board and in the Libertarian Party who believe in natural rights.

[CapnOfMyFate]

(a) First, the original 13 States which joined the Union effectively signed a contract (The US Constitution) which did not provide an "escape clause" (a way for any of the parties to the contract to unilaterally terminate their participation in the contract)

See: No Treason, by Lysander Spooner. No arguments with 1(b) & (c) or 2.

[BSH]

Rep sent, sir. Freedom from religion would be a thing of the past in a sovereign bible belt nation...

Perhaps you misspoke: there is no such thing as freedom FROM religion. But you are correct that the freedom OF religion would look rather different than it does under current USSC jurisprudence. I think free exercise would return to prominence, and the meaning of the word "establishment" would return to something more closely aligned with its dictionary meaning.

[Eugene V. Debs]

See: No Treason, by Lysander Spooner. No arguments with 1(b) & (c) or 2.

You need to stop readin them anarcho-capitalist sites.

On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.

Irrelevant. The Southern states cited the preservation of slavery as the proximate cause of their secession, and whatever the intent of the Northern politicians (many of whom, like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner, did, in fact, see the War's main purpose as extinguishing slavery), the end of chattel slavery and of the South's semi-feudal society was the direct result of the War. And the Radical Republicans made earnest efforts for a decade after the end of the War to prevent the effective re-enslavement of Southern Blacks, and ensure their enfranchisement and equality under the law with the force of Federal troops.

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

Uh, no the principle was-- just because a President you didn't support got elected (because your party was dumb enough to split the votes between two different candidates) doesn't mean you get to say "Waaaah! I quit! I'm taking my toys and going home."

Interesting essay though, I'll try to respond to the more substantive parts of his argument later.

[dsnover]

Really? I'm an atheist and I believe we have natural and inalienable rights. And I'm quite certain I'm not the only one. Robert Nozick, probably the most important modern libertarian philosopher, agreed with John Locke's principle of natural rights (Locke basically created the idea and thought they came from God), even though Nozick himself was atheist. Then there's Ayn Rand, who I think sucks big donkey dicks, but a lot of libertarians and conservatives in this country seem to like her-- also an atheist. Also probably plenty of atheists and agnostics on this very board and in the Libertarian Party who believe in natural rights.

I'm not really seeing the conflict. You've simply stated that 'nature' is your 'god' (note the small 'g'). Now, how far you would like to go with that is, of course, up to you. But I'll posit that it's fundamentally flawed logic to declare our rights based upon 'nature'. As the Philosopher Thomas Hobbs noted: "Life in an unregulated state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Living by the laws and 'rights' of 'nature' could easily justify all kinds of barbarism, but I don't see it leading to a fundamental right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.

[BSH]

Once again the ever thoughtful Mr. Debs has a well-informed and well-reasoned reply. I don't know if I can even rep you again before more spreading, so here's your +10.

Agreed, that state governments would take over the oppressing, but there would be a great deal less of it, and that's a fact. First, the purses would be much smaller so the scale of abuses would be much diminished. Most states would simply lack the resources to consider anything like the Federal national security state.

Secondly, there is a virtue in having government closer to the people. There is greater accountability when the government is smaller and closer to the governed.

This is related to a question that I think motivates some of the "secession" discussion. In the Founders original vision, state governments were intended to take care of almost everything, and the federal government was supposed to take care of a few things specified in Article I. Federalism has been steadily eroded, and the Feds have encroached, far exceeding the bounds of written constitution. This opens the door for talk of revolution or secession, and not without some justification.

I don't think there is any meaningful distinction between secession and revolution. As others pointed out, our national heritage contains a certain predisposition for not tolerating an abusive and/or unresponsive government. If/when something like that should happen, the response of the spurned central government would depend greatly on the condition at the time. Frankly, economic collapse of the United States is probably more likely than another civil war. Given the current debt load, the government could not likely extend its credit with foreign lenders.

[CapnOfMyFate]

You need to stop readin them anarcho-capitalist sites.

Heh... In all honesty, that was the easiest-to-find source of it on Google. My An-Cap days are long over and I don't ever want to revisit them.

I look forward to your analysis of Spooner, though I also think his arguments about "social contracts" hold merit despite an arguably oversimplified analysis of the casus belli for the American Civil War.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Once again the ever thoughtful Mr. Debs has a well-informed and well-reasoned reply. I don't know if I can even rep you again before more spreading, so here's your +10.

Aw shucks, dude-- thanks. I'd hit ya up, but the button is broken for the next 24 hours.

Agreed, that state governments would take over the oppressing,

Well, then that raises the question of the legitimacy of dissolving its bonds with the US. If we are to take the Declaration of Independence as a guideline for what justifies rebellion/revolution/declaring independence-- then simply redrawing the political boundaries within which oppression will take place, and localizing the ultimate political authorities engaging in the oppression doesn't cut it.

but there would be a great deal less of it, and that's a fact. First, the purses would be much smaller so the scale of abuses would be much diminished. Most states would simply lack the resources to consider anything like the Federal national security state.

Maybe, but I think you may be overestimating the resources required to keep a people in bondage. Take post-bellum Mississippi for example-- about 30 to 40% of the population was Black, the state was (and still is) relatively poor, definitely didn't have anything remotely close to today's national security state in terms of organization, technology or resources, and yet, for many decades, they (along with the other former Confederate states) were able to effectively re-enslave 30-40% of their population, keeping them as sharecroppers (serfs, essentially-- a minor step up from chattel slavery) or in prison work crews for minor offenses (chattel slavery) and prevented them from voting. They were also able to ruthlessly establish a one-party state during the time of Jim Crow, starting before Lenin even had the idea and lasting a good 15-20 years after the death of Stalin. This sizable minority could be lynched at will for the slightest of offenses (looking at a White girl for too long, bein uppity, whatever). And this was all done, for the most part, with poorly financed and equipped local sheriffs and their deputies, and vigilantes/terrorists assisting them (the Klan).

Lots of tyrants throughout history and today who have been able to keep a stranglehold on power with few resources as well.

Secondly, there is a virtue in having government closer to the people. There is greater accountability when the government is smaller and closer to the governed.

Very true, but this would not necessarily prevent the ruthless oppression of minority groups, an example of which I gave above. For example, as an atheist I doubt I'd feel too damn comfortable in South Carolina to begin with, but if they ever seceded while I was living there, unless I was organizing counter-revolutionary insurgents, I'd be getting the hell out of dodge quick.

This is related to a question that I think motivates some of the "secession" discussion. In the Founders original vision, state governments were intended to take care of almost everything, and the federal government was supposed to take care of a few things specified in Article I. Federalism has been steadily eroded, and the Feds have encroached, far exceeding the bounds of written constitution. This opens the door for talk of revolution or secession, and not without some justification.

True.

I don't think there is any meaningful distinction between secession and revolution.

I do-- one is related to a specific theory of "States' Rights" (namely that they are sovereign entities that can leave the Union when and if they please) and carries a lot of negative historical baggage with it, and the other is a more general concept.

[-JD-]

Yes, but this does not establish the basis of "secession" technically-speaking. It does, however, establish the basis for revolt and/or part of the US declaring independence from the rest-- but the latter, in and of itself, is not secession. Secession is a particular theory based on the idea that States entered the Union as sovereign entities and have the ability to leave. I disagree with that idea, but I do agree with the idea, as stated in the Declaration of Independence section you highlighted, that when government becomes destructive towards the rights of man, it is the natural right of people to either dissolve that government or declare themselves independent of it and create a new government which respects rights.

Since a state seceding is really just the people of that state, acting through their political organization, deciding to opt out we have a simple enough work around. Hypothetically, the people of PA simply decide to abandon the corporate state of Pennsylvania and organize a new one - Pennsylvania 2.0 or Libertania, for example. Technical problem solved.

There are lots of things that the constitution does not specifically contemplate, secession among them, but might it not then fall under the Tenth?

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.

[BSH]

I do-- one is related to a specific theory of "States' Rights" (namely that they are sovereign entities that can leave the Union when and if they please) and carries a lot of negative historical baggage with it, and the other is a more general concept.

Your point is good. Mine is that the functional difference is minimal. The legal splitting of hairs, "is there a right to secede or isn't there" just doesn't matter to the situation on the ground. The historical baggage of "states rights" is unfortunate, because it's a good concept, and that baggage plays like the race card in trumping otherwise reasonable questions of the proper limits of Federalism and the rightful role of the central government. I think those questions are more important today than any other time since 1860, and the context couldn't be more different.

The question of whether states have the right to leave the union will never be conclusively answered, and I do not agree with the notion that it was settled by the Civil War. I think the Founders left no avenue out of the Union deliberately, being painfully aware of the deficiencies of the Confederation (referring to 1781-1789). But I also think the Declaration of Independence asserts a natural right; the right of revolution. The consent of the governed must come into play, and when that consent is withdrawn, there is no compulsion that can justify further rule by the spurned government. The essay by Spooner is rather good on that account.

Aw shucks, dude-- thanks. I'd hit ya up, but the button is broken for the next 24 hours.

As I suspected, I'm supposed to spread it around more. Either I'm stingy, or the computer wants me to be a whore with the whole "rep" thingy...