Secession?

Secession? The subject of last week’s edition of Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk” took me by surprise, and aroused my curiosity as well. After all, any serious discussion of a state seceding from the Union has been somewhat unpopular in this country ever since Yankee bayonets enforced federal authority at Appomattox Courthouse nearly 150 years ago. Still, the subject has come up in the media any number of times in recent years, most recently when Texas Gov. Rick Perry, in comments following an anti-tax "TEA party" on April 16th, suggested that Texans might get so fed up with taxes and the federal government that they would want to leave the union. He never specifically advocated Texas breaking away from the United States, but even his mild comment was sufficient to trigger a firestorm of media reaction across the country, and once again screaming outrage from the liberal left.

To many in the United States, secession is much the same as treason and rebellion, a fact resulting from ignorance of the words real meaning. Yet the United States itself came about from an act of secession, in an era when secession and self determination were not only believed to be inalienable rights, but were practiced, often with mixed success. In North America, Virginia set the ball rolling in June of 1776 by declaring her independence from Great Britain. The twelve other colonies jointly declared their independence the following month. Still, most Americans generally associate secession only with the US Civil War, and usually think the issue was settled for all time. Yet even a cursory search of the internet finds that nearly half our states have secessionist movements active today! From New Hampshire to Hawaii, from Alaska to Texas, these groups are alive and well, and passionately pleading their cause. Oddly enough, Idaho isn’t one of those states with an active secessionist movement. All are rather small organizations naturally, but in some cases are quite vocal if nothing else. What are their chances of success? Slim I’d say, but keep in mind that only three percent of the American colonists actively planned, staged, and won their rebellion in 1776.

Today of course, we are “much more civilized” than our forbearers, and given the largess distributed by our benevolent federal government, we have no need to withdraw from our great union. Or at least that’s what we’re supposed to believe. It seems almost un-American to believe that the compact which holds the Union together might be sundered. Yet the right to secede is not denied us by the US Constitution, or by any State Constitution that I’m aware of! (I don’t think a state can be involuntarily kicked out either.) The framers of the constitution apparently assumed that if we join the Union voluntarily, we would have the right to withdraw from it if we so desire. With that, obviously, the next question would be… why would American citizens wish to secede from the union?

Man is a social creature after all, and has been since the dawn of the human race. People banded together in small groups in prehistoric times, they built tribal communities, and over time developed the system of government that gave rise to the modern nation state. Government is supposed to be the guarantor of greater peace, tranquility and health than might otherwise be obtainable. In theory it serves to protect property and rights, even though it does not grant or create them. John C. Calhoun in his “Disquisition on Government” expressed the view that; "although intended to protect and preserve society, has itself a strong tendency to disorder and abuse its powers, as all experience and almost every page of history testify.” What then are we to make of this fearful creation that we rely so heavily upon? How do we make government the servant of our needs, and avoid becoming servants of the government? Strangely enough, the framers of our constitution had the answer to that as well, when they very severely limited the powers of the Federal government. Federal powers were clearly described, and the individual states are guaranteed all other powers that are not specifically denied them. Unfortunately, since the end of the Civil War, the several states have quietly allowed the Federal government to assume many of those powers, a trend that does not seem to be ending.

The principle of “one man, one vote” refers to the fact that all citizens, regardless of where they reside, are entitled to equal legislative representation. Initially, the House of Representatives was apportioned by the population of each state. Thus, as the nation’s population grew, so did the number of seats in the house. When the House reached the unwieldy number of 435 members, the law was juggled as to apportion those seats in such a manner that voting power (and thus political authority) was retained by the densely populated urban states at the expense of the rural states. While we might think this is all well and fine, it completely overlooks the fact that the wishes and needs of urbanites are usually totally different from those of our rural citizens. One example of this disparity might be the stimulus program. While large amounts of money are being handed out to every state and most counties in the country, the larger cities are making out like bandits, which is great for the cities, but rather difficult for the ruralites in the country, who, making up around 48% of the population, are going to find themselves paying 48% of the bill. Keep in mind also that Mr. Obama’s budget will increase the national debt by more than that of President Reagan, both Bush’s, and Bill Clinton… combined. Where is either the justice or even the equality in that? Besides, with all that stimulus money being borrowed from China, what are we using for equity on that loan, our big cities perhaps, or maybe our countries natural resources that just happen to be located in rural areas? Or are we supposed to believe that Communist China is loaning us those trillions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts? For all practical purposes this disparity might be considered as making us two distinct countries under the same flag!

There are always people who generally figure that their knowledge and ideas are superior to all others, and who like nothing better than to tell everyone else what to do. Government seems to be the natural home of these control freaks, where they can happily become mini-tyrants. On a small scale they can generally be ignored, but when they become “the government” with the power to enforce their radical ideas, they quickly disturb the peace of mind of everyone around! When the citizenry isn’t in agreement with the government, the army is always available to enforced obedience. Remember that our revolution was decided by force of arms, as was our civil war. All of our early day incipient rebellions fizzled out when faced by the US Army. The same situation exists today, considering that a mob of aroused citizens armed with hunting rifles isn’t going to last long when faced with an organized and disciplined army equipped with tanks, machine guns, and attack helicopters!

Secession? I think I’ll keep calling for a voter’s rebellion instead…