The Secession Petitions: Good, Silly, or Bad?
Let me start by stating that I did not vote for Romney nor sign any of these petitions. However, I would like to share a couple of points you may not have thought of; though I would guess most of the people who have signed the petitions haven’t thought of these either. Hopefully they will if you pass this along.
Is secession an ‘anti-American’ idea?
1) Each of the colonies independently declared their independence from Britain. Thus, America was born of secession. It was the original ‘patriotic’ act in terms of the United States. Yes, it was unpatriotic in terms of the British government, but we’re talking about the ideals that founded the United States, not those that supported Britain.
2) Each of the colonies joined the Union voluntarily. Putting aside Lincoln’s illegal actions during and following the Civil War, based on the Founders’ original intent of forming a union for the colonies collective betterment, why could states not voluntarily (and peacefully) leave the union if they felt it was in the interest of their own betterment? Self-determination (along with the resultant and necessary self-responsibility) are at the very core of liberty and freedom; two concepts championed by America since our inception.
3) Until the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, people living in the United States could more or less opt-in or opt-out of being an American. This again, goes back to the original idea that voluntarily being in or out of the Union (down to the individual level) was an important American ideal. In this vein, it is interesting that the first sentence of the 14th does NOT say all persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Through the use of the word ‘and’, the 14th specifically says some people living in the United States are NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Who are these people? Are they the ones who opted out? Again, an American ideal of voluntaryism perhaps sneaked into an otherwise very un-American amendment.
4) Finally, the Declaration of Independence asserts our Right as free human beings to alter or to abolish our government and institute a new one. The act of secession – again as an original American ideal – falls right in line with this. Peaceful secession is patriotic and utterly American.
Ultimately, the idea of voluntary and non-coercive participation in the Union – or dissolution thereof – at an individual, local or state level, is at the very root of our history and patriotic thought.
Incidentally the Pledge of Alleginace and its ‘one nation, indivisible’ came along only at the hands of a self-avowed socialist in 1892 (a far piece from the Founders’ intent in 1776).
Should individuals or states petition the US government for secession?
No. One does not ask for permission to secede, one simply declares it. However, if one does so, one must be prepared for the reaction of the party one is leaving, up to and including war.
Which leads into…
Who would defend these former states.
1) Aside from being bombed or invaded by the US government, who might they need to defend themselves against in the immediate future?
2) Is it a logical stretch to think these former states might join together to form a new union, perhaps a new union even similar to the original US under the Articles of Confederation or the US Constitution.
3) And, in a twisted sort of way, perhaps the United States could defend these new countries. For a price of course. What I mean to say is, there’s nothing that says former states, individually or as union, could not establish free trade with the United States. So again, casting off a political argument, I find another economic argument for secession – free trade.
Is secession a political or an economic decision?
1) For most party-loyal, blinder-wearing GOP’ers, the answer is political. Of course, for the Left, the idea of unyielding fealty to the US government is also blindly political. This is where the discussion (and these petitions) get silly. However, soldier on….
2) The facts are the US gov’t has forced Americans (backed by the threat of physical violence) to conduct trade and pay taxes using the US Dollar via legal tender laws, while devaluing the same US dollar (through inflation and deficit spending) by some 97% of its purchasing power since 1971 (Nixon was a Republican, by the way). For a person (or state) to consider that private, local or regional currencies could potentially outperform the US dollar on the open market, while ridding the person (or state) of any repercussions for the US government’s fiscal and monetary decisions, the economic decision (at the state level) becomes worthy of discussion. California’s issuance of IOUs during their recent default serves as a modern example of a state issuing a de facto local currency; these IOUs were accepted as payment by banks as well as being traded on the Forex markets under the regulation of the SEC. That said, doing away with legal tender laws and allowing local or regional currencies is not the answer; the US government would continue to require federal income taxes to be paid in US Dollars. As such, most people would continue to hold and use the US Dollar (verus local or regional currencies) out of convenience, thus even if given the choice the US Dollar would remain the de facto national currency. An entirely new government, with a new currency, would be required in order to escape the dying US Dollar and government. Thus, an economic (fisacal and monetary) argument is born for secession.
3) But, why not fight to save the US Dollar and fix the US government? ‘Get back in the arena and fight’ as you said on the show today. The main problem with our modern political system (say, over the last 100 years) is the US government (regardless of which party has been in control) has learned they can do whatever they want because Americans have no choice but to do what they tell us to do. Short of renouncing one’s citizenship, the US government even follows (via taxation) those that leave the country. In this light, the old ‘love it or leave it’ argument becomes fallcious; leaving does not solve the problem. In short, under the current system there is no incentive for the US government to change, and yet plenty of incentive for them to ignore the best interests of Americans. Economically depriving the US government in terms of refusing its currency or taxation – either in court or via secession – is the only way to get the US government’s attention. Don’t believe me? Don’t pay your taxes and see if they pay attention. Thus, again, a new government would be required to escape the US government and/or give them the incentive operate in the best interests of their citizens.
4) And this brings us to the final economic question in this regard: Can the US government avoid a collapse of the US dollar, pay its debts, and meet its unfunded obligations? Mathematically the answer is a resounding NO. The states would be wise to at least consider secession – as an economic tool – in order to possibly avoid what is coming to the US government and those who are forced to use its currency versus their ability to successfully go it alone or form a new union with other former states.
In the end is secession a good idea?
No one knows. We all want things to be better for ourselves and our families. Most of us want the same for our towns, our states, our nation, and our world. And so we take risks – physical risks, financial risks, etc. Secession is just another risk some might agree is one worth taking in order to better our lives.
Would secession be my choice?
I would not recommend secession or any type of ‘revolutionary’ act. Despite the facts that we have the right do so and that I can argue the rewards of doing so might be worth the risk, history teaches us that these acts tend not to work out the way we thought they would so.
So, I would do three things:
1) I would abolish the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, while encouraging each state – via passage of state laws under the 10th Amendment – to reroute all federal income tax collections from their residents to the state, who would then fund (or not) the federal budget on a line-item basis as determined by that state to be constitutional (or not). Of course the US gov’t would immediately withdraw all funds allocated to that state and sue the state for non-payment. Good. Let the courts decide (and thus create precedent for) what is a constitutional responsibility – on a line item, enumerated basis – of the federal government. I believe this would:
a) Limit the federal government to their constituionally mandated responsibilites by defunding their largesse and returning that money to the states and people,
b) Force the states to govern from a moderate, centrist position (as a result of Americans migrating to states that better suit their social and economic beliefs); in other words, get too extreme left or right at the state level and I’ll take my labor and taxes to another state (this is THE incentive for change that is missing at the federal level),
c) Give Americans more choice in how they live (social issues) and a greater voice in how their taxes are spent (economic issues).
d) Return the Senate to its true purpose as the voice of the States within the federal government. The House represents the People, the Senate should represent the States.
2) I would do away with all banking laws and replace them with one. That being, one dollar of capital shall be required for every dollar of lending. In other words, I would do away with fractional reserve banking.
3) I would end deficit spending at the federal level immediately and permanently. With no federal income tax and no ability to borrow, the federal government would (once again) work for the states and the people.
Of course, I would be hung the next day as this solution would throw us into an immediate depression. Though in a separate argument, a depression is exactly what we need (and will get whether we engage it voluntarily or not) in order to root out the debt and return America to sustainable growth levels. Mathematics does not care about politics, so we better start paying attention to that and less to whatever other divisive ‘social issue’ garbage they throw our way.
In closing, I believe in whatever manner it takes – through secession or otherwise – we, as a people, must find a way to make the government work in our best interest while respecting and upholding – at all costs regardless of our personal belief systems – the Rule of Law and Private Property Rights. To do otherwise, irrespective of future elections outcomes, will certainly lead only to the violent destruction of our nation and society from within. And that’s something none of us wants.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=12118
