An interesting take on secession.
• People can withdraw their consent to be ruled by corrupt government
By Mark Anderson
from: American Free Press
Looking at recent headlines about citizens in the 50 states wanting to secede from the federal government, it’s tempting to conclude that they should secede from the federal union due to widespread disgust over Washington’s mismanagement and suffocating central control. But another important concept puts the idea of secession in a new light and suggests there is an alternative in case the White House ignores the people.
That other concept, rarely discussed, is dissolution of the Union. In this context, dissolution means that the modern federal government, through layers of radical statutes, executive orders and harmful constitutional amendments, has departed from the people’s intended constitutional order to such an extreme degree that it has become a different government, alien to the original system laid down by the nation’s founders. Therefore, the constitutional government we’re supposed to be living under has been dissolved.
“You wouldn’t secede from a dissolved government anymore than you would divorce a deceased spouse,” said Ron Avery, a Texas patriot well versed in the writings of America’s founders.
AMERICAN FREE PRESS sat down with Avery to gain a better understanding of this perspective. As Avery sees it, the issue boils down to this: Since the states and their people, which created the original federal government, are being ruled by a rogue regime that reset the dials so much that it overthrew the original constitutional order, then seceding from that unlawful, alien regime is a form of tacit acknowledgement of that imposter government’s legitimacy.
“You don’t secede from a dead union—[instead] you declare it dissolved,” Avery said.
Those freed states could stay separate or form their own unions, he added.
Avery stressed what he sees as a major flaw of secession: It basically “leaves in place” the rogue federal regime that rules its United States subjects and controls most of the world by force and fear.
However, under dissolution, the people and the states in which they live withdraw their consent to be ruled, and they do so without “going” anywhere. If even one state would be so bold as to declare the facts of the constitutional government’s dissolution, this observation could spread to where the legitimacy of the federal regime is seriously undermined and, with sustained effort, declared void.
Looking back at the War Between the States, Avery said: “Secession state by state . . . is suicide.”
Any seceding states would make themselves look like radicals, he added, and could potentially be militarily subdued by the federal government as during the War Between the States.
The federal government is only supposed to operate according to the Constitution’s specified grants of power from “We, the People.” But to depart from the Constitution in drastic enough ways is, in the final analysis, to practice a new government that has no authority to rule—and yet it still rules without authority granted to it by the people.
That, says Avery, is the true definition of tyranny.
Thanks for posting this, Craig. This is more or less my approach as well.
One of the reasons that I advocate pan-secessionism rather than mere secession by individual clusters of states is to avoid of a repeat of what happened in 1861. Pan-secessionism involves developing a consensus of political groups from across the cultural and ideological spectrum towards the common aim of abolishing the 50-state, 1000-base domestic and international empires headquartered in Washington, D.C.
Specific political organizatons, movements, or individuals can have their own reasons for wanting to secede. Mine are more or less the reasons listed in this: http://attackthesystem.com/why-the-radical-left-should-consider-secession/ and this http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/preston1.html
Plus, the process of decentralization associated with secession is more compatible with my own anarchist and libetarian outlook and secession is a value neutral strategic vehicle that is compatible with American history, culture and political traditions. The two most important events in US history were the American Revolution and the Civil War, both of which were either a secession or an attempted secession.
A single state that tried to secede would be annihilated. We have to understand the nature of the empire we are struggling against. They have the land they took through genocide and the wealth they built up through slavery, proletarianization, and military conquest. They have an international empire that has killed 20-30 million people in the last half century. They have the largest police state and prison industrial complex in the world. They were the ones who introduced atomic weapons into international conflict. They gladly killed 625,000 people to preserve the empire last time there was an attempt at secession.
In my judgment, a secessionist effort would have to grow to the point where it was politically dominant in at least a majority of the territory of the present day US and where a significant majority of the US population either favored, sympathized with or at least did not actively oppose the secessionist movement(s). In other words, the success of pan-secessionism would amount to the defacto if not dejour abolition of the Union in pretty much the same way that this article suggests.