Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Fresh thinking on secession

From Rebellion comes some excellent thinking about why secession is necessary in our country in our time:

A commenter to that blog wrote:

"I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone who believes empire and imperialism aren't problematic. It is the conclusion that secession/rebellion, for all its violence and bloodletting, is somehow a sufficient and even desirable way to deal with centralized government that is bothersome."

As Mike Tuggle, who maintains Rebellion, writes: "It's good to be challenged -- it forces you to re-think and re-state your reasons for blogging and for advocating a particular point of view."

The problem with all consolidated government in large nations is this: They tend over time to become dictatorial. The District of Coercion can fail, and fail miserably; spending us into hyperinflation (coming soon to a store near you), but (as Mr. Tuggle writes):

"Thanks to the rigorous indoctrination of the government schools, folks think Lincoln's counter-revolution, which substituted the sovereignty of the central government for the sovereignty of the people, is somehow sacred. So they are unable to conceive of human-scaled government -- all the important decisions must be made by the Wise Ones in DC, no matter how often they screw up. We're stuck playing musical chairs, switching names and positions in DC, in the illogical belief the system is good and noble, and only needs different people to make the system work. Meanwhile, things mysteriously get only worse."


Either we, the people, force DC to return the power it seized (the old word was usurped) from us, or we should fire them. And firing means secession. Perhaps total withdrawal from the Union isn't necessary, but it must be available as an option to provide us with the necessary leverage to ensure that Washington listens to us and honors our rights as States and people. We have the reserved right to withdraw from the Union.

To those who see local culture as romantic and unattainable, we argue that, on the contrary, it is quite necessary. Mr. Tuggle notes that no political unit can be born or survive without the affection and loyalty of its people, and no voluntary political unit can be established without a cultural foundation uniting the people.

Quoting professor Ghia Nodia of the University of Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia:

"Democracy has always emerged in distinct communities; there is no record anywhere of free, unconnected, and calculating individuals coming together spontaneously to form a democratic social contract ex nihilo. Whether we like it or not, nationalism is the historical force that has provided the political units for democratic government. 'Nation' is another name for 'we the people'."

For local sovereignty to return as a counterweight to the present centralized system, local loyalty must be nourished. And the creatures who feed off the cancerous growth of Big Government know that, which is why both leftists and Neocons are afraid of our little secessionist movement; and in their fear, they want to persuade us of its impracticability, of the "inevitability" of war, and even that secessionism is inherently racist* (a point The Ohio Republic has repeately refuted).

War is not inevitable following a secession, and it is not inherently impractical; and we have plenty of history to prove it! Holland seceded from the old Netherlands (creating Belgium), Norway from Sweden, the 15 Soviet Socialist Republics from the USSR, the five Yugoslav republics and Kosova from what is now Serbia, the Slovak Republic from Czechoslovakia. All were peaceful, except Bosnia-Herzegovina.

All it takes is the ability to think like an independent nation, and the determination to act.

* with the patently absurd charge that the Alaskan Independence Party is somehow "neo-Confederate" in its thinking.

1 comment:

Matthew Cember said...

Thank you as always Harold for explaining our shared point of view in such an eloquent and accessible fashion. It is important for all readers to remember the central point of our argument: sovereignty (supreme national power) rests with the individual states: it has since before the ratification of the federal Constitution and it will continue to do so after that Constitution has been repealed. The government of the United States exists at our pleasure (or ought to, anyway) and has no power except that which we decide it is OK for it to wield.

It is true that secession can easily be allowed to happen peacefully, but it is also true that in the brief British-American experience so far on this continent, it has not yet been allowed to do so. The current American Empire shows no signs of being any more mature than it was in Lincoln's time. Nonetheless a way must be found for us to regain our freedoms - the stakes are far too high to just "not care" - and even if we have only peace in our hearts, we must be aware of the tendency for the American Empire to militarily crush all those who cross it.