Is secession legal?

This issue was posed to opposing teams of British and American lawyers, asking whether America acted legally to use the Declaration of Independence to separate from the British Empire. According to BBC Magazine, the judges found in favor of the Americans, because of the American argument that the reasoning behind the Declaration of Independence already appeared in a British document in 1688: "The English had used their own Declaration of Rights to depose James II and these acts were deemed completely lawful and justified."

I still have to wonder why, if secession was so amply justified in 1776; that the same act, under similar circumstances, has been deemed illegal and reprehensible both in 1861 and today. To me, it seems logically inconsistent.

Secession will take place in the near future, because nothing really unites the country that has taken diversity to an extreme. There are no unifying principles, religion, or language. As Patrick Buchanan wrote recently (article in the Tampa Tribune, but published nationally), we will face a "secession of the heart." We need to think about this now, while it is still possible to do so in an orderly manner.

How to approach the Occupy movement

I know many people consider the League of the South to be a racist organization,* but I think their approach to Occupy Whatever is exactly right. We need to consider the same for Ohio.

From their news release Oct. 17:

The League of the South, the primary Southern nationalist organization, has watched the Occupy Wall Street movement for a month now with some interest. We have even been asked to participate in some of the protests in cities across the South.

However, we have politely declined. And here's why, according to League President Michael Hill: "Though we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Wall Street banksters are crooks, we have no interest in either occupying Wall Street or reforming it. Simply put, we want to leave it behind, along with every other corrupt institution of the American empire, and work to create a free and independent Southern republic. That is our solution. We encourage the Southern people to embrace it."(Emphasis added).

* I report, you judge.

Which will it be: martial law or independence?

Scott Lazarowitz at the Bastiat Institute recounts the warnings of many writers to date that the U.S. Government is headed toward a police state:

We are unfortunately experiencing the culmination of the “perfect storm” for totalitarianism in America. The buildup of decades of state-worshipping indoctrination in our schools to the point of developing a prevalent police state mentality is not helpful to liberty, to say the least.

In this day and age of TSA porn Nazis and molestation sickos, which is a federal government policy run amok now at America’s airports, and which is a policy primarily to empower agents of the State to remind us mere subjects of the State’s supreme superiority, the real (albeit unstated) reason for any martial law will not be to “protect the public,” but to further empower the State. The real purpose of martial law would be to stifle political dissent and for the federal State to remind the sheeple who’s the boss, just like the TSA is doing.

So what are the alternatives?

Now, one solution to prevent a police state with martial law would be to undo the federal economic and monetary policies that have led the U.S. to the point of possible economic collapse...

But will that happen any time soon? Nope. We can’t rely on the same nincompoops and scoundrels in Washington who are committing these acts against our liberty to actually reverse themselves. As Perry Como would say, “It’s just impossible.”

A much more practical solution would be for the people of the states to nullify all federal laws and policies, police state dictates and mandates, a “de facto secession,” as Congressman Ron Paul had described. And not just any federal martial law that might be imposed, and ObamaCare, but especially the banking and legal tender laws that restrict competition in money and banking, and allow for competing currencies in the states and a return to the Gold Standard. (And don’t forget the important recognition of the individual’s right to bear arms.)

The people of the states have a right to nullify federal laws that violate their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, period. And they also have a right to fully secede from the “Union” as well. No one has a right to force someone else to be a part of an association against one’s will. The federal government has no moral right and no legal authority to force the people of any state to be a part of a “Union,” in which that union’s government is destructive of their liberty, prosperity and security. [Emphasis added.]

If we can save the Union by successfully implementing nullification resolutions and passing the "Repeal Amendment," this would be the most desirable solution to the problem. But if we can't, we must be prepared to break up. An individual has much more influence over Ohio's government than he has that of the United States -- and to the same extent our state government is more accountable.

Farewell to an old friend

Longtime readers of The Ohio Republic know that one of my favorite sources of information was the blog Rebellion. I was notified last week that it had ceased publication. It was unquestionably a Southern blog, with its continuing guerrilla war against the Southern Poverty Law Center and its peculiar attitude toward Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We made a gentlemen's agreement to disagree over the latter issue. A unique feature in recent months was the "Southern music break."

However, Rebellion contained interesting news and comment about federal follies and secessionism that was not readily available elsewhere – so they were the largest single recipient of virtual buckeyes* from The Ohio Republic. Rebellion was more than a weblog – it was a forum, with some of the most interesting and spirited discussion to appear anywhere in the blogosphere. For many Southrons and this writer, it will be sorely missed.

Its blogger, Mike Tuggle ("Old Rebel") will remain active, concentrating on growing his organization and working on its quarterly newspaper, Free Magnolia.

We'll send it off by striking up the band with a rendition of an old Ohio show tune by Daniel Emmett, originally known as In Dixie's Land:

	Civil War Tunes - Dixie .mp3
	Found at bee mp3 search engine

* To the uninitiated: a virtual buckeye is a link to allrecipes.com for Ohio's signature confection, known as a buckeye: a ball of sweet peanut butter encased in chocolate. It serves the same purpose as "HT" (hat tip) in other blogs.

The Ides of Texas

It was November 8, a Saturday night in Austin, Texas. About a quarter past seven, KLBJ host Patrick Timpone was interviewing Congressman Ron Paul, when Rep. Paul dropped a little bomb. Responding to a question from Mr. Timpone as to whether he could be persuaded to run for Governor of Texas in 2010, Rep. Paul answered that he did not consider himself the right person to run for that office. He then added in jest, "I might come up and say we should secede from the Union, and then they'd run me out of town." (located at 19:38 in this file).


Mr. Timpone rather liked that idea, and pursued it with some questions which almost sounded as though he were prodding Rep. Paul to consider secession more seriously. A few days later, Yahoo Answers posted a question as to whether Texas could make it as an independent nation. The answers from Texas were enthusiastic for secession, and quite convinced that it could be done. The movement gained legs on the Ron Paul forums as well, with one writer noting that Larry Kilgore had garnered some 27% of the vote in the Republican primary for U.S. Senator (225,783 votes) on an explicitly secessionist platform!


Then on November 25, the discussion went national on the Glenn Beck program. Unfortunately, Mr. Beck decided to have more fun with it than anything else. His division of the U.S. into six nations was funny, but totally out of touch with North American geography and existing secessionist movements (Mr. Beck and his map are at left).

The most important development was the buzz in the blogosphere, where both supporters and opponents of the idea began to take it seriously. Don't take my word for it, just Google "texas secession" to get an idea of what I mean. This is a major step forward for North American secessionism.

This is not to say that most Americans are ready to have secession on their radar screen; only that the idea is less laughable than it was even three months ago.

However, despite the groundswell of Republican support for Mr. Kilgore, Texas secessionism has some serious problems. First, except for Mr. Kilgore's campaign (he is now running for Governor in 2010), there is no really organized movement for Texas secession. A number of organizations have been created since the mid 1990s, but tended to get caught up in the so-called "patriot" movement aligned with the militias that became well known at that time. Those organizations splintered into several small, competing groups. Today, Texas secessionism remains badly fragmented.

In addition to the Texas groups, the League of the South has a Texas chapter, whose goals appear to be closely aligned with that of the general organization.


Texas is a big state, with a distinct culture and a past history as an independent nation (1836-1845). It is obviously viable as an independent nation. The challenge for Texas secessionism is to root out the crackpots and to get everyone else on the same page. Ron Paul might have the political acumen and credibility to pull it off as Governor, and perhaps Larry Kilgore could, too. One thing is sure, it will take very strong, determined leadership to build a movement that will generate any hope of success.

Secessionist takes: Lincoln and Immigration

Regular readers to this blog know that I frequently read (and occasionally quote from) the League of the South's blog Rebellion. While my endorsement of their content can be rather qualified, they do bring up some excellent points on topics of interest to all conservatives and secessionists, including these:

Those who praise Abraham Lincoln as the one who saved the Union usually do so without thinking about the price that was paid. As President, he more blatantly violated the Constitution than any other (the present one included). In this post Rebellion gives us a sort of theological take on the subject (Their link to Al Benson, Jr., elaborates; but has a stronger Southern slant than I would endorse).

The other post gives several quotations from America's founding fathers on immigration, which show considerably less enthusiasm for open borders than the American left has today.

My thanks to Michael Tuggle for providing the entire secessionist movement with some great source material!

Our "allies"

I am at the library today catching up on my Internet activities. I posted a comment to the end of the discussion "League of the South: Learn to Use P.R.!" that summarizes my take [which remains favorable] on their organization eloquently. I won't be interested in receiving mail from them... but I may still purchase a Confederate Silver Dollar with my tax return! «laugh»
I am more intrigued with the issue of sovereignty as it applies to the indigenous peoples. I frequently infuriate both the "white supremacists" and the "black supremacists" with my views that if anyone ought to get "reparations" for the actions of our ancestors, it should be the Native Americans! Like so many young white people educated in public schools, I find that I don't really know anything about the indigenous tribes. But perhaps I need to begin educating myself quickly, because it may be well for us to make an effort to reach out to tribes native (or formerly native) to Ohio and make a space for them. (A real space, not a crappy rez on land nobody else wants.)

Race and secessionism

This discussion opened a can (no, make that a barrel) of worms. My purpose in bringing it up was to see for myself just how racist the Confederates were. I will not issue a summary judgment here, but invite you to judge for yourself in the comments to my posts on Martin Luther King Day and the preceding Friday; and on the Martin Luther King Day thread in the League of the South's Rebellion.

Ohio needs to secede, because independence will result in a more efficient, more accountable government. With some decentralization, it will also greatly enhance the personal freedom and quality of life for all of our people.

Martin Luther King, Jr., shared his dream. It is up to all of us to make it reality.

League of the South: Please learn to use p.r.!

I suppose the cartoon on the left pretty well captures the standard public image of the “secesh” in our part of the world. And it is one that the League of the South is apparently intent on perpetuating. Even if it defeats the cause. Bear with me for a few paragraphs, and I shall explain why this matters to us who are north of the Ohio River.

The League has a serious public relations problem – it is widely perceived as being racist – but as Fox News says, I’ll report, you judge. The immediate case in point has to do with the upcoming Martin Luther King Day observance at the State Capitol in Columbia, South Carolina, which will be attended by several of the Presidential candidates. The NAACP has planned a large rally to honor Dr. King and to press for the removal of what is popularly known as the Confederate Battle Flag from the war memorial on the Capitol grounds. The South Carolina chapter of the League has decided to launch a massive “flagging” – a counterdemonstration in which all of their supporters who can find a Confederate Battle Flag will display it prominently while the NAACP demonstration is taking place. Thus, the counterdemonstration simultaneously pours contempt on the work of Dr. King and uses its most abrasive symbol to do so.

Before I continue, a few disclaimers: First, what South Carolina decides to do with the flag is their internal matter, and is not the point of this discussion. Secondly, I sympathize with the League’s contention that they want to honor their ancestors. One of mine also fought for the Confederacy. Finally, we need to make a distinction between “political correctness” and public relations. “Political correctness” is the suppression of discussion because its content might offend someone. Public relations embraces the discussion, but in a way that seeks consensus.

The Confederate Battle Flag is a bold in-your-face design that is offensive to many people, not only because it is an historic symbol of the Southern nation; but in the years since the Civil War has become intimately associated with white supremacism, segregation, and rebellion. There are other Confederate flags (left) that can be used to honor the war dead. A p.r.-savvy League would call off the counterdemonstration and say something like “We have the right to honor our traditions, but we understand why people are offended by the Confederate Battle Flag. We therefore propose that one of the other flags be displayed at the war memorial.”

A few years ago, Georgia adopted a new state flag modeled on the Stars and Bars with relatively little objection from the Black community, and Confederate war memorials in several states display the 3rd national flag (lower right in the illustration above). If the NAACP insists on removing all Confederate symbolism from the war memorial, and the League insists that the only acceptable symbol is the Confederate Battle Flag, the debate will never end. The NAACP will continue to be aggravated and the League will continue to be branded with the word racist. It is therefore in the interest of both organizations to settle the issue.

The problem for us up North is that the perceived racism of the League of the South (and please note, I’m trying to be fair by calling it perceived) has ramifications up here. The most mature secessionist movement today is the one in Vermont. Begun in 1991 as an outgrowth of discussions during their Bicentennial, it has won support from 20% of the population, according to a University of Vermont poll last year. The best known organization, called the Second Vermont Republic,* was well on the way to advocating a resolution for secession from each of the some 200 town meetings to take place this March. However, one of the leading lights of that movement is Prof. Thomas H. Naylor, who moved to Vermont some 20 years ago from a teaching position at Duke University, in North Carolina. His close association with the Middlebury Institute (a secessionist think tank based in New York), and the latter’s defense of, and cosponsorship of a secessionist convention with the League of the South, has split, and apparently seriously damaged, the Vermont movement. While the criticisms of Prof. Naylor and his movement smack somewhat of guilt by association, neither the Second Vermont Republic nor the Middlebury Institute has answered the allegations, one of which is that the Institute is effectively acting as a front organization for the League of the South. (I personally doubt that this is true, but again, the allegations remain unanswered).

So, we have a domino effect. If the League of the South cannot apply p.r. to address the charges of racism, they will never sell secession to a majority of Southerners. As a result, the League may cause Vermont’s movement to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory, and it will greatly increase the financial and psychological startup costs for movements elsewhere, including Ohio.

All because they will not challenge the notion that a secessionist is a cartoon figure in a gray uniform that shouts “Fergit, hell!!!”

(I will give my own views on racism on Monday).

* The First Vermont Republic existed as an independent nation from 1776 until its admission to the Union in 1791.