"The denial of the right to secede from a voluntary union is itself a primary justification for secession"
Project Status and How You Can Get Involved
Resources
External
ASP In-depth State and Region pages
| Alaska |
| Arizona |
| California |
| Cascadia |
| Hawai'i |
| New England |
| New Hampshire |
| North Carolina |
| South Carolina |
| Texas |
|
Vermont
|
Secessionist No. 2
The Right to Govern, June 01, 2004
Since the dawn of history man has formed associations for mutual benefit and
protection. H.G Wells provides an excellent overview of the trends and
tendencies of collectivism that carried mankind from tribal existence to the Age
of Imperialism. His volume entitled The Outline of History written in
1920 was an attempt to answer the questions relating to how man moved from relatively
diverse and independent associations to imperial nation-states that waged war on
a global scale. Wells’ work is unique and significant in its treatment of
history. Any thinking man that sincerely wishes to understand the nature and
purpose of government ought to be familiar with Wells’ outline, dated though it
may be. .
We accept readily the necessity for government. The reality of the world we live
in is such that without government to restrain the evil around us the individual
would be faced with a daily fight for survival. The acceptance of common
association in the form of government necessitates that the individual delegate
some rights and to the government. In this sense government is a necessary evil.
Free men have always understood the inherent evil nature of government.
Governments weld tremendous power over those whom they rule. Invariably all
systems of government that are restrained in power solely by the government
itself move from liberty to tyranny. Historically this has always been so. When
those that control the government establish that the government is superior to
the creators and act as the sole judge of the propriety of expanding
governmental power tyranny has already begun to take hold.
George Washington described government thusly: “Government is not reason; it
is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a
fearful master!” The words of several of the other significant figures in
our early history mirror the words of Washington. It is apparent that the
creation of a new federal government was embarked upon with the greatest of
concern for individual liberties, the preservation of the rights of the states and the avoidance of tyranny.
What then is good government? John C. Calhoun stated in
Disquisition on
Government that:
"The infinite Being, Creator of all, has assigned to man the social and
political state, as best not only to impel him into the social state, but to
make government necessary for man’s preservation and well being."
This is a principle shared by those that founded the federal government as well
as the majority of the thinkers and philosophers of the century preceding that founding. Our own
Declaration of Independence speaks of the freedom granted to man by God (the
creator to use their word) to
establish government. Good government is that which governs least and abides by
the documents and agreements that gave it birth.
The framers of the Constitution were very careful to establish limits and checks
on the central government. Many today read the Constitution of the United States
and see rights and powers delegated to the States and the people. The framers of
the Constitution saw the document as rather as a dispensation of very specific
and limited powers to the central (federal) government; all other rights, powers and
liberties not specifically given to the central government were to remain with
the States or the people.
Wherefore does the Government of the United States gain legitimacy to govern?
Was the federal government born of popular affirmation? Did it gain sovereignty
from the King of England via the terms of peace granting the thirteen colonies
independence? In fact the central government was born of and created by the
independent thirteen colonies. King George III granted independence to the
several colonies as free and independent states. The British crown did not deal with
or recognize the central government, only with representatives of the thirteen
separate colonies. The question of which political entities
had sovereignty and independence first is clear. The can be no legitimate debate
on this point.
In forming the central government the states did not relinquish or surrender
their inherent sovereignty. Like all associations of sovereign entities since
the dawn of time the communal association of free and sovereign states in 1789
was akin to the formation of a club. Its members chartered the club, a set of
rules and guidelines was established, and certain rights were delegated to the
club in order for it to function. The acts of forming and joining the club in no
way diminished the status of the members.
The term “delegated” is key in this assessment of the relationship between the
central government and the states. It is impossible for an inferior entity to
delegate powers to a superior. In such a case the proper term would be
“surrender”. Delegation occurs between a superior to a subordinate or between
equals. The words used in the formation of the Union were those of delegation to
the central government from the states; not of surrender of powers. It is
apparent that the strongest position intended for the Federal government to hold
in relation to the States was that of an equal and the weakest possible position
that of inferior. Nowhere con it be proven that the Central government was
intended to be superior. .
The words used in the Virginia Act of Ratification of the United States
Constitution state these points well:
"We, the delegates of the People of Virginia, duly elected….in behalf of the
people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the
Constitution , being derived from the people of the United States, may be
resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or
oppression; and that every power not granted thereby with them and at their
will: that, therefore, no right , of any denomination, can be canceled,
abridged, restrained, or modified."
It is clear that Virginia as the sovereign agent of the People of Virginia
neither surrendered rights or sovereignty in the ratification of the
Constitution. Furthermore, at ratification they made it clear that the agreement
would survive only contingent upon the continued benefit to the people.
The central government rules by the consent of the people through the sovereign states that gave it
birth. Those states gain their sovereignty from their citizens; the people. The
right of the Federal government to rule is based on nothing more complicated
than that. So long as the government rules by the consent of the people it is
moral and legitimate. Whenever the government ceases to abide by the compact
that gave it birth or usurps powers not delegated to it there will exist
illegitimacy.
Recedite, plebes! Gero rem imperialem
El Cid
North American * Secession and Independence Movements
*Hawaii and Puerto Rico are obviously not part of North America, no offense intended
Active Secession Movements Around the World
One Nation Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution