Liberty MavenSecession: Great Right Hope or Other White Meat?
April 21st, 2009 5:00 am | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Activism, Big Government, Civil Liberties, Commentary, Individual Responsibility, Libertarianism, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Philosophy, Racism, Ron Paul, law, slavery | 3 Responses
The question of secession was more or less settled during the Civil War. Thanks to that low point in American history the right of secession has been tied to slavery ever since. Isn’t it time again to make an effort of untying that knot?
I will not complicate the untying of that knot by quoting our Founders nor Abraham Lincoln. I will instead make an attempt to use logic. It is up to whomever reads this to decide if I’m successful in this endeavor.
The right of secession is a claim of freedom from the State. It is a rejection of State slavery. It is purely libertarian yet it has always been associated with the “peculiar institution” which was a complete rejection of liberty. Slavery has muddied the secession debate to the point that it is difficult for anyone to sound off in favor of secession without being demonized as a kook (at best) or a white supremacist (at worst).
I want to claim publicly, before I get labeled, I abhor slavery in all forms. It is pure evil. How hypocritical it was for the Confederate States to use States Rights in an attempt to continue violating human rights. It is also quite hypocritical today for those who claim to believe in liberty to marginalize those that support secession as a recourse for combating creeping State tyranny. Such tyranny is nothing more than a form of collective slavery.
How can individual slavery be so wrong and collective State-sponsored, taxpayer-funded slavery be right? The answer, of course, is that it cannot. Slavery in all forms is immoral, whether it be evidenced through the government’s incrementalist approach of freedom reduction or by the sound of a whip gashing a man’s back. The drama of the latter should not minimize the evil of the former.
To be a supporter of secession while denouncing human slavery is consistent and moral in the cause of liberty.
History has shown that one era’s fringe is another era’s mainstream. It is unlikely that secession would be considered a viable option by the masses for combating the ceaseless expansion of government today, thanks in large part to those that feel compelled to associate it with slavery. The secession principle is wholly libertarian and deserves more respect than it is receiving from the detractors.
Ron Paul has been a favorite target of the detractors because of his recently released pro-secession video. In it he focuses on the right message, the principle of secession. Instead of attacking Ron Paul we should be emulating him.
If we make the effort to unmuddy the water of secession in our time perhaps the next generation won’t be afraid to swim in its clarity. After we are gone they will thank us for our eternal vigilance so they still know liberty.
Follow LM on Twitter
April 21st, 2009 at 8:46 am (#)
[...] The interview goes on to question Ron Paul on the bailouts, pointing to the recent “success” of banks turning profits. Watch the video below for his answer then read my own take on secession, Secession: Great Right Hope or Other White Meat? [...]
April 21st, 2009 at 2:42 pm (#)
If the constitution is a valid contract between independent states entered into voluntarily by each state.
Logic says that that each state must be able to leave the union or the contract is not voluntary, agreement to the contract was and or is coerced or forced. This invalidates any contract by definition a contract is a voluntary meeting of the minds.
The idea that a morally bankrupt concept Might Makes Right is used to say the issue was decided by an unconstitutional war is ludicrous.
Since the use of violence (in the war between the states) to stop states from leaving voluntarily we now know that there is no constitution, there is no union, there is just the force of the federal government (an entity created to carry out the wishes of the several states). If the several states no longer exist as a party to an agreement by the act of secession which nullifies the contract, the federal government ceases to exist as it is the offspring of the agreement. No agreement no federation no government, completely logical consequence of the voiding of the contract.
The above idea is why there is always vehement opposition to the idea of nullification or secession. It calls in to question the existence of the federal government.
April 21st, 2009 at 5:32 pm (#)
So many violations exist since it's beginning, there must be a peaceful solution. How about Washington, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia during the Global Warming epidemic then Mexico, Cuba, and the Bahamas. The federal government can bounce from Greenland to Baffin Island.