Friday, February 20, 2009

Managing the Revolution

Reaction from some of my commenters and a number of bloggers to the State sovereignty resolutions suggests to me that many observers still have a Lincolnesque fixation on the idea that secession, or even asserting State sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment is somehow tantamount to civil war.

In my post February 1 ("The center cannot hold"), I explained why I believe that the current economic situation will foreshadow the collapse of the United States of America. This is, of course, a radical thought that goes against everything we were raised to believe. It is also a disturbing thought, and for that reason alone, it is understandable that many Americans are living in denial.

One of the reasons The Ohio Republic favors secessionism is to help us all prepare for the collapse we see coming. In a way, "secession" is a misnomer. If the United States collapses, no State, in declaring its independence is really "seceding", in the sense of making a conscious action to break away. Instead, independence becomes a rational response to maintaining freedom under law for our own people when the larger nation ceases to exist. In other words, preparing for independence is a sensible way to manage a revolution. The alternative is chaos (think Somalia, but don't think it couldn't happen here).

While I question the long-term effectiveness of the State sovereignty resolutions, I strongly support them as one last effort to preserve the Union, by returning it to the Constitutional principles that kept us free for over 200 years. What we are doing today is not siding with Jeff Davis against The Union -- that was a different time with different issues. What we are doing has more in common with the first secession -- that of thirteen colonies against an Empire that rejected the traditional rights of Englishmen where its colonies were concerned, and did so with a haughty arrogance that tested the courage of every patriot. A challenge very similar to the one we face today.

If the State sovereignty resolutions succeed in their object, we will again feel truly blessed to be part of the United States of America; but if they fail, we have a responsibility to ourselves and our descendants to preserve our peace and our liberty the best way we can.

In the way of denial lies death, destruction, and despair. In the way that we are advocating lies freedom, and even more importantly, hope. For myself, I would rather have liberty than death.

2 comments:

novacadia said...

Great post, Harold!

Re "...it is understandable that many Americans are living in denial." This analogy to pop psychology comes up a great deal in the secessionist/post-peak oil discourse. My understanding of these things is that if one is "in denial" then, at some deep, subconscious, subliminal level they "know" the truth. That is what they "deny" usually via some means of desperate rationalization. That is not the case with making an argument for secession. The general public is literally ignorant of secessionist social benefits, ergo cannot be "in denial." It is a simple matter of political agitiation and education.

Re "In a way, 'secession' is a misnomer." Agree totally. I raised this point at the recent NAmerican Secessionist Convention in New Hampshire. The looks I got reflected my having three heads as opposed to the usual two. My point was that by relying on and utilizing the term "secession" secessionists were actually shooting themselves in the foot. The term alienates and frightens people, ergo is horrid marketing. People, as a rule, do not buy any widget that alienates and frightens them. Over the next few years I look forward to another expression displacing "secession." Whenever possible, I fall back on being an entropist, devolutionist, implosionist, etc.

Further to what you imply, the process of secession will not, for the most part, come about because it is being willed by ranters and ravers, of which the secessionist community has its fair share. As I understand it, the historical dynamic will be closer to one of "secession by default." The latent conditions on the socio-political horizon will be what they will be. The onus falls on secessionists to adapt political strategy and tactics onto conditions as they are, not what they would like them to be.

PatriotsWrath said...

Great post and yes the People must endeavor to reprogram themselves from the many corruptions of their political views that have transpired from the Civil War to today.

First the People must understand that the Civil War was NOT about slavery. That was simply a catalyst in a much larger debate about State's rights and the Federal Government overstepping its bounds.

Unfortunately the side supporting the States and the Constitution lost that war. More unfortunate is that it happened at all.

However out of that came the notion of being a US citizen first and foremost vs. a sovereign of your State. First major whammy to the protections of the Constitution.

Sovereignty resolutions are not about secession. They are about the States declaring their intent to defend the rights of their sovereign citizens as the Constitution intended. Secession may at some point be an action that must be taken if faced with a Federal Governemtn so power hungry that it refuses the shackles placed on it by the Constitution. But never the less the People must recognize their duty to defend these principles or we shall all surely fall over the brink into slavery. How ironic if you consider where it all began.

As for your comment, "In the way of denial lies death, destruction, and despair. In the way that we are advocating lies freedom, and even more importantly, hope. For myself, I would rather have liberty than death."

Nothing my friend could be more true.