The Case Against…The Case Against Secession

bonnie blue
Even for the “we won’t concede an inch of the current 50-state geography of FUSA” amongst us, this article is worth a read simply as a debunking of the rhetoric back in 1860-61.

Centralized tyranny won’t stop until it is defied and then stopped.

Simple as that.

(H/t CSG)

7 responses to “The Case Against…The Case Against Secession

  1. Walking Horse

    Buchanan … ” “It was intended to be perpetual, and not to be annulled at the pleasure of any one of the contracting parties.”

    Here Buchanan concedes that the Constitution is a contract amongst the States. His assertion that the contract be perpetual simultaneously makes a mockery of the common law concerning contracts. If there be no remedy for breach of contract, including the dissolution of the contract if it is breached, then the creature (the Feral* Government) created by the contract is unconditionally invited to toss away the provisions of the contract (the Constitution) and act as its administrators will. I have taken to referring to this as the “Roach Hotel Model of Statehood.”

    “If the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.”
    — Thomas Jefferson.

    “The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes [and] delegated to that government certain definite powers and whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. To this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution the measure of its powers.”
    — Thomas Jefferson

    * – not a typographical error, but a statement of fact

  2. Those with the notion that they’ll side with the US government if any state elects to secede again, I only have this to say.

    You don’t own us, you never have. If we, for example South Carolina, elect to secede, the other 49 states have no legitimate power to say no; they didn’t in 1860 and don’t now.

  3. Ft. Sumter: No Federal Right To Occupy
    ……….having neither been completed not garrisoned according to the contract, either within the three years specified time, or,
    for that matter, by 1861, Major Anderson occupied a piece of property that the United States had not the vestige of a right to occupy, and
    which was under the ownership, jurisdiction, and sovereignty of the State of South Carolina exclusively.

  4. It doesn’t matter. At all. Tyrants don’t have legal or moral right to any of the crap they do. Does anyone actually think an irrefutable LEGAL argument would stop Sherman mid- march? If South Carolina voted (all nice and legal) to secede, do you think Fed Leviathan would say “oh, you guys voted? Well, bye I guess. Write when you get work.” this time around? I am sick of Texans saying that Texas “reserved the right to secede again when it rejoined the Union”. So fucking what? No nation (especially an imperial one) with a heartbeat and hard on will sit idly by while chunks of it start claiming independence. The UK lost her empire when it was exhausted from two devastating wars in 30 years. The Soviet satellites didn’t give Stalin the finger, they waited for someone who couldn’t get it up and was broke (Gorbachev). The Hungarians had the “right” to leave the Warsaw Pact in ’56, but the didn’t succeed. Why? Were the court documents not filed properly or not clever or witty enough? Or was is the THOUSAND TANKS Khrushchev sent?