Only Through Secession can we achieve Liberty

[The Last Confederate]

Secession of a state (via the “Freestate Project) is the only plausible step toward achieving our desired goal of liberty and firearms rights. The freestate project can NOT reach it’s desired goal if it insists on remaining a part of the union. Even if liberty oriented people dominate the state legislative body, even if we have LP senators and a governor, all we could hope to do is to effect and change all the state laws. We will still have almost zero federal impact. 90%+ of the most restrictive firearms laws are those which are federal in nature.

If the freestate project chooses to remain in the union, it’s citizens would still have to put up with all the immoral and illegal federal laws, from welfare, to gun laws, to taxes and homeland security.

Secession is the only solution toward creating a TRULY free state where we can enjoy unadulterated arms ownership. It is the only way in which we can bypass the federal laws by throwing off the federal yoke of oppression. The union has become tyrannical and secession is the last peaceful method possible for free men to deal with the tyranny. However, in order to secede we need support of the state legislator, which is why the FSP is such a good idea. So we can get control of the legislative body in order to be able to pass a resolution toward secession from the tyrannical union and get on the road toward a truly free state. However, by remaining part of the union this can never be so.

If by remaining part of the union, even if the freedom lovinging citizens control the state legislative body and enact the few local changes a state is still capable of enacting, the goal of the project will fail. Even if other states take notice of the local success of the FSP and turn into “Free states†of their own, they will still be coerced into abiding by all of the tyrannical and oppressive federal legislation. Effecting change in State laws is nice and all, but these days, the monolithic Fed has so much say and control over our lives, much more than the state gov. does. It simply isn’t enough to abide by the Federal’s authoritarianism, while letting New Hampshire do the few things which the Federal union has not yet mandated for it.

Two libertarian senators will have no meaningful effect in the senate. Neither would 4, or six. Our goal is to achieve as much liberty as quickly as possible. To do this would require the nullification of countless tyrannical Federal laws. There are tens of thousands of these already on the books. Now, to work within the system to achieve this is not only a delusion of naivety (name me one great change that was made from working within the system), but even if it WAS possible, it would take too bloody long. Even if we had the support in the congress, senate, executive, judicial, and within the constitutes themselves, to get our bills passed to legalize all things from narcotics, to prostitution, and the private ownership of all forms of weaponry, to the abolition of social security and wel-fare it would take years and years of introducing thousands of bills to gradually turn the tide that authoritarianism has already taken on this country.

Sure, you could try to change the country by passing one mega “freedom bill†that would instantly liberate the country. However, such a mammoth bill would never have any hope in hell to be supported or passed by any legislative body on the face of this earth, now or at any time in history’s past.

Which brings me back to my previous point, “changing the system by working within the systemâ€. I’m afraid such is an outright impossibility. No system on earth has ever been changed by working within it, indeed, it is outside the best interests of the system to create provisions for which it can be abolished. Sure, our founding fathers tried to initiate such a system in the beginning of this nation, but as so often happens, it too has become corrupted beyond conventional means of repair (conventional, IE, working within it to change it).

That is why secession provides us with the only feasible and reasonable solution toward achieving a free and liberated society. It is much easier to liberate a state with many likeminded people than it is to liberated a Massive Confederated nation full of ideologically hostile people.

 

[Wildalaska]

Hey Clem bring the Reynolds Wrap its startin again

WildherewegoAlaska

 

[buy guns]

from your FAQ page

Q: Does the Free State Project promote secession?

A: No, the Free State Project is not promoting secession.

 

[Rebeldon]

In a truly free republic, secession should always be an option. Secession can be a way to avoid intolerable circumstances regarding regionally polar issues. Gun rights/control is certainly one of those issues. Early in our nation's history, the threat of secession caused regionally polar issues to be dropped for fear of being too divisive.

Was the question of legality of secession really settled in 1865? Jefferson Davis said, "A question settled by violence, or in disregard of law, must remain unsettled forever." Why do you think there are so many Southerners who will not forget?

It may seem ironic, but Mikhail Gorbachev showed more understanding of freedom and self-determination than Abraham Lincoln.

The following is a very challenging read:

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/dwliv01.html

 

[c_yeager]

These threads always give me a chuckle...

 

[JohnBT]

TLC - I'm curious where you live. I'm in Richmond and there're quite a few diehard Confederates hereabouts. JT

 

[manyironsinfire]

If you thought Waco was horrifiic or Ruby Ridge was unjust--- I shudder at the thought of what the feds would do if a state wanted to susede

 

[Foreign Devil]

Alaska had an independence movement abut 20 years ago, and their candidate actually became governor.

But it just isn't going to happen - Americans are generally happy being Americans. They generally think of themselves as American first, not Floridians or Oregonians.

 

[The R Hawkeye]

Count me in. Secession was one of the many powers retained by the states when the Federal Government was formed. This is precisely why the history of our nation, prior to 1860, demonstrated that the Federal Government feared secession and, due to that fear, refrained from enacting legislation which might trigger it.

The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers granted to it by the words of the Constitution, and that all others are retained by the states and the people, respectively. It is without question that the states, prior to the ratification of the Constitution, possessed sovereignty sufficient to authorize secession from the union. This is the case because, prior to the Articles of Confederation, they were sovereign and independent states, even if united in the cause (as allied states) of independence from Britain. The states did not, by said Articles, relinquish any power of secession from the union, and neither did they relinquish said power via the words of the Constitution, therefore, this power was one of the many retained powers of states. All sovereign states retain the power to withdraw from any union with other states, until said power is specifically relinquished by a fusion into a larger state, and that only by the express words of the document which caused said fusion. This never happened in the United States. Many aspects of state sovereignty were retained, including the power of secession, according to the Tenth Amendment.

Lincoln's actions were clearly despotic in nature, being a violation of the Constitution, which did not grant the federal government, or any component of same, the power or authority to use the military to prevent secession. Secession is just as legal today as it was in 1861, and I am all in favor of it. Let me know which state is seceding, and I will be there to support and defend its legal right to do so.

 

[DMF]

Ah, Hawkeye trotting out the same tired and flawed argument about Lincoln. The war was fought because the Confederate states committed acts of war, and gave Lincoln (and the US Congress) an excuse to fight, win, and re-unite the Union. I know you don't agree, that you claim those attacks by the South were somehow justified, etc, etc., but anyone here willing to research Ft. Sumter and the other attacks on US territory and troops, prior to Sumter, can see the truth. The truth is the South chose war by attacking the US, and they lost.

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - General William T. Sherman

 

[buy guns]

if you guys did secede, what is to stop other countries from taking you over? hell, the cartel could overthrow you guys.

 

[The R Hawkeye]

DMF, do you never tire from losing this argument? LOL. Anyone who wishes may study the history of the Civil War and discover that the Union, after a legal secession by the State of South Carolina, not only refused to evacuate their hostile forces from said sovereign and newly independent state (which they were asked to do), but had the audacity to respond to said request with an attempted resupply of said hostile forces. This act of war on the part of the Union provoked South Carolina's act of repulsion, i.e., the firing on said hostile forces.

 

[The R Hawkeye]

If you guys did secede, what is to stop other countries from taking you over? hell, the cartel could overthrow you guys.

The same thing that prevents other countries from taking over Switzerland, i.e., "that every man be armed," and willing to defend what's theirs. What stopped the might of the Soviet Union from enslaving Afghanistan? Essentially, it was the unwillingness of the Afghani people to be enslaved. How does Monaco manage to retain its independence?

 

[Molon Labe]

I agree with TLC; secession may be the only way out of this mess.

To the naysayers: what is wrong with secession?

 

[DMF]

Hawkeye, you always seem to ignore that the territory in SC and FL which I am referring to was the property of the US government, legally transferred to the US Government by those states, prior to secession. Claiming that the property in question belonged to the states is false, and would be the equivalent of you selling me a piece of your property, and then unilaterally deciding you wanted it back at a later date.

You are the one who never tires of this argument, because you started this debate, again, not me.

Side note: Just out of curiousity why the new username?

 

[ProGlock]

DMF: I will admit to you that you make a good point. The South (actually South Carolina) fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. In my opinion it would have been better for them to simply form a blockade against federal supply lines coming in.
If they would have offered to escort all federal forces out of the state and guaranteed that no harm would come to them, we'd probably have a VERY radically different history that we do today.

Now granted, Lincoln always said he would never order the federal forces to fire first...that the South would have to fire the first shots if they wanted a fight, and they did. That is what is unfortunate. If another revolution were to happen, it must happen in a non-violent manner for as long as possible and the first shots must never be fired by those who are seceeding.

I am all for the rights of secession. In fact, federal legislators or courts can try to enact any ridiculous law they want to ban it. It will not stop a state from removing itself if it is determined enough.

 

[flatrock]

The same thing that prevents other countries from taking over Switzerland, i.e., "that every man be armed," and willing to defend what's theirs. What stopped the might of the Soviet Union from enslaving Afghanistan? Essentially, it was the unwillingness of the Afghani people to be enslaved. How does Monaco manage to retain its independence?

Were the Afgani people free? A large portion of the population was cruely oppressed by the Taliban. They traded oppression for opression because they were not protected by the rule of law within their country.

Secession is always an option, just as armed resistence against a tyranical government is always an option. However, you won't be truely free unless you live where your govenment supports your freedoms.

Secession from the US hardly guarentees more freedom. Many people have fought for freedom only to find out that their new government is as bad or worse than the previous one.

The United States was founded on freedom. There are ways in which it has gone astray. However, you have the choice of trying to get the United States back on track, or to try and start over. Trying to start over would be a bloody and dangerous course, and I question if it is a reasonable or viable choice.

If you have enough people to viably effect secession, why don't you have enough people to viably effect reforms?

The commerece clause of the Constitution has been horribly abused by the federal government. It's the weak link in many of the unsavory laws that remove personal freedoms. We need to effect both legislative and judicial reform in the US. We also need to start with our youth. Schools need to be forced to teach students about the constitution, and the checks and balances that are designed to keep our government from trampling on the rights of it's citizens.

The fight is being lost because people who wish for the government and courts to follow the constitution are depicted as radicals. Some of them are radicals, and those are used as examples to discredit the efforts of others.

The constitution is in the way of the goals of many of those who consider themselves progressives. The news media is full of them. Our higher education system is full of them, which influences teachers, which in turn influences our children.

The Constitution and our rights are being slowly taken away, and each generation knows less and less about what we are losing.

Secession won't solve the problem, because the problems isn't a small number of people in power opressing the general population. The problem is the general population has bought into the idea that giving up their rights is in their best interest.

Unless you can effect change in the minds of the people, secession is pointless.

 

[jojosdad]

I don't support secession from the U.S., but if anyone wants to revive the idea of the State of Franklin (splitting CA into 2 states) - I'm there.

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

Unless you can effect change in the minds of the people, secession is pointless.

True. Crisis usually brings about that change though. And breaking from the union will always be an option.

The main reason Americans buy guns is because of a fear of government.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds34.html

 

[Bobarino]

if your secession movement is sucessful, could you please take California, New York and Massachusetts with you? the rest of us would appreciate it. thanks.

Bobby

 

[Das Pferd]

 

[The R Hawkeye]

If your secession movement is sucessful, could you please take California, New York and Massachusetts with you? the rest of us would appreciate it. thanks.

Bobby

So, Bobby, you are essentially advocating that 47 states secede from the union. I'm with you.

 

[The R Hawkeye]

Hawkeye, you always seem to ignore that the territory in SC and FL which I am referring to was the property of the US government, legally transferred to the US Government by those states, prior to secession. Claiming that the property in question belonged to the states is false, and would be the equivalent of you selling me a piece of your property, and then unilaterally deciding you wanted it back at a later date.

You are the one who never tires of this argument, because you started this debate, again, not me.

Side note: Just out of curiousity why the new username?

I would like to see the documentation to this effect. Was it a lease, or a sale? At any rate, let us assume that Joe Smith, in 1912, sold a thousand acres of land in Washington, DC to the Russian Government. Would the United States have allowed Vladimir Lenin to station troops there in 1925? Frankly, I doubt it, even if the Tzar had been allowed to do so previously. National security always supersedes real estate deals. I don't think, by the way, that S.C. would have objected to the U.S. growing crops on that land, or running a vacation resort there. It was just the military presence that was the problem.

The screen name change is temporary. I am packed and ready to move to a new state, and my computer is packed away. For some reason, I wasn't able to sign on as myself on someone else's computer, so I started a new screen name. Soon as I settle in to the new house, I will go back to being The Real Hawkeye.

 

[flatrock]

quote:Unless you can effect change in the minds of the people, secession is pointless.


True. Crisis usually brings about that change though. And breaking from the union will always be an option.

I agree that breaking from the union is always an option, I just don't see it as a good option. For it to be viable, you would have to have a State made up primarily of like minded people, have a constitution that protects people's rights, and the means to force the secession and defend your new state. You would need to have a proper judicial system in place to protect the rights of your citizens, and you'd need to provide for new elections soon after secession.

None of that is in place. To me it seems a greater step to get that in place than to attempt change from within. Both are monumentous tasks, but change from within is the high road in my opinion.

If you're talking about a forceful secession of a State without the support of the majority of the citizens, then you're aren't talking about freeing people, you're talking about forcing them to accept your views.

The main reason Americans buy guns is because of a fear of government.

I've never bought a gun because of fear of my government.

I know a great many gun owners, and can only think of one that might consider fear of the government as a primary reason that he buys guns.

Has my government given me reasons to fear it at times? Yes.
However, in the vast majority of the cases where a individual's rights are being stepped on by the government a gun isn't likely to help the situation. In protecting your rights in the US from your government a lawyer is almost always a better tool than a gun.

Note that I said ALMOST always. I won't deny that there may be very rare circumstances where you need to defend yourself against agents of the government. I also feel that it is our right to be able to do so. However, to say that the primary reason that most people own guns is fear of the government appears blatantly false to me.

Mr. Edmonds also ignores a 4th reason people purchase and own guns, sport. I would suspect that between sport shooting, hunting, and personal defense against criminals you cover the reasons that the vast majority of gun owners own guns in the United States at least.

 

[Graystar]

Secession of a state (via the “Freestate Project) is the only plausible step toward achieving our desired goal of liberty and firearms rights.

And exactly how do you plan to secede? You DO realize that the United States would never allow a state to simply secede. The US will force you to come back and force you to comply with fines and prosecutions. You intend to fight the US military?