Is secession the answer?

[Eric]

By Walter Williams

One political question we have to answer is whether Candidate X or Candidate Y shall be president, and just which party will control the House of Representatives and the Senate. But I'd suggest that there's a far more important long-run question we must answer: If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives, and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences, or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?

Like a marriage that has gone bad, I believe there are enough irreconcilable differences between those who want to control and those want to be left alone that divorce is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

Let's look at just some of the magnitude of the violations. Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution enumerates the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained it in The Federalist Papers: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

Nowhere among the enumerated powers of Congress is there authority to tax and spend for: Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for Congress' mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. A list of congressional violations of the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end.


Americans who wish to live free have two options: We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights, or we can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. That can be done by peopling several states, say Texas and Louisiana, controlling their legislatures and then issuing a unilateral declaration of independence just as the Founders did in 1776.

You say, "Williams, nobody has to go that far, just get involved in the political process and vote for the right person." That's nonsense. Liberty shouldn't require a vote. It's a God-given or natural right.

Some independence or secessionists movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden, Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally and we have fought three major wars together. There is no reason why Texiana (Texas and Louisiana) couldn't peaceably secede, be an ally and have strong economic ties with United States.

The bottom line question for all of us is should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another?

[dBrong]

A very good article.

The Federal Government has used the Constitution to expand it's power (I go to a bowling alley where there are 10 handicapped spots - how handicapped can you be if you bowl?), and at the same time has ignored the Constitution when it 'gets in the way' of expanding it's power even more.

The question should be "Why are we the 'united states', and what benefit is to continue being the united states?"

The older I get, the more I realize that the office of the president is less and less important

[misterdecibel]

How do we determine which states secede? With an election? With the same gullible, ignorant, fickle electorate who have voted in the last few election cycles?

[Eric]

How do we determine which states secede? With an election? With the same gullible, ignorant, fickle electorate who have voted in the last few election cycles?

The people in each area (note necessarily state) could hold a referendum.

The real contest, in my opinion, is as Willams says: Between those who have this mania to impose their will by force on others and those who believe in live and let live. Unfortunately neither group is clearly defined by geographic boundaries. Major southern cities, for example, are just a statist and Maggot-filled as Noo Yoik.

In some way - yet to be determined - the non-Maggot class will have to divorce itself from the Maggot class (parasites and power lusters).

[dBrong]

How do we determine which states secede? With an election? With the same gullible, ignorant, fickle electorate who have voted in the last few election cycles?

I think the easiest place to start is with states that have a low population, without a lot of breeders. Midwestern states: ND, SD, IA, etc.

What would happen is that the welfare states: CA, NY, NJ, PA, IL, DC, VA, MA, CN, MD, FL, would remain in the union, but there would be nobody to pay for their excess!

Forget about who's president - it doesn't matter.

[misterdecibel]

I think the easiest place to start is with states that have a low population, without a lot of breeders. Midwestern states: ND, SD, IA, etc.

What would happen is that the welfare states: CA, NY, NJ, PA, IL, DC, VA, MA, CN, MD, FL, would remain in the union, but there would be nobody to pay for their excess!

Forget about who's president - it doesn't matter.

And you think those low-pop states are paying it now?

[swamprat]

The people in each area (note necessarily state) could hold a referendum.

The real contest, in my opinion, is as Willams says: Between those who have this mania to impose their will by force on others and those who believe in live and let live. Unfortunately neither group is clearly defined by geographic boundaries. Major southern cities, for example, are just a statist and Maggot-filled as Noo Yoik.

In some way - yet to be determined - the non-Maggot class will have to divorce itself from the Maggot class (parasites and power lusters).

How true about major Southern cities. They are in some ways, worse than Noo Yoik. At least when you listen to someone like Chuck Schumer, you know what he is. But if you get some dirtball like Bill Nelson (FL) you get the worst kind of chamellion vermin with a southern accent masquerading as a down home type, but is really a statist maggot parasite.

[swamprat]

I think the easiest place to start is with states that have a low population, without a lot of breeders. Midwestern states: ND, SD, IA, etc.

What would happen is that the welfare states: CA, NY, NJ, PA, IL, DC, VA, MA, CN, MD, FL, would remain in the union, but there would be nobody to pay for their excess!

Forget about who's president - it doesn't matter.

FL? Oh crap.

[Eric]

How true about major Southern cities. They are in some ways, worse than Noo Yoik. At least when you listen to someone like Chuck Schumer, you know what he is. But if you get some dirtball like Bill Nelson (FL) you get the worst kind of chamellion vermin with a southern accent masquerading as a down home type, but is really a statist maggot parasite.

Possibly it will take some sort of horrible cataclysm - a war, a biological plague, a real economic collapse - that wipes out a large number of the Maggot class (the parasites and those who feed on them; that is, politicians).

One of the reasons we had freedom in this country in the past was because there were relatively few people overall and the non-Maggots vastly outnumbered the Maggots. Thus, the Maggots were kept in check naturally.

But the modern corporatist welfare state has fostered a population explosion (most notably among Maggots) because it requires Maggots for its economic and political survival.

Hence the willfull importation of tens of millions of Turd World "immigrants," the aggressive pushing of black low culture and the refusal to impose any really meaningful negative consequences on Maggot behavior, such as cutting off welfare for repeat breeders and executing convicted violent felons such as murders and rapists, etc.