"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. 4
Secession as the ultimate test of democracy
America is a nation born of and endowed with a healthy and abiding sense of
democratic principles. We have moved from a very republican form of government
in which representatives elected by various means conducted the business of
government to more recent arrangements in which our
representatives are directly
elected. (I do not advocate that this particular occurrence was necessarily
beneficial, I merely point out the fact) Furthermore, the growing use of referendums of the body politic has
come into general use to settle many matters. We seem to believe in justice and in
democracy.
The fact that the concept of justice and democracy are not always compatible is
a notion that we seldom ponder. In a system where 51% of the people are able to
obtain what they want and 49% are consistently unable to influence the political
process justice is an unobtainable goal. This assumes more than the loss of one
particular election. I am speaking of a minority or minorities within the general population
that hold values and principles at such variance with the majority that they
may never hope to significantly influence political outcomes. When the
difference in the values and principles of a segment of the population varies so
greatly and minority groups are consistently left without an effective voice the
will of the majority becomes tyranny for the minority. In a contest between
democracy and justice if democracy always wins the system is flawed.
We acknowledge the right of all citizens to vote via the ballot box. Our system
rewards those in the majority while denying representation for the minority. We
do not so readily recognize the right of the people to vote with their feet. To
simply decide that the political association is no longer in their best interest
and therefore decide to leave that association.
Our own Declaration of Independence clearly states the true American view of
“voting with one’s feet”:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life,
Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety
and Happiness.
It seems that in the mind of those that advocate a strong, perpetual and
indivisible union that the right of men to establish governments of and by their
consent was a one time event. To accept their argument one must accept that
“times have changed”. What we should ask what has really changed? Have
principles changed? Principles are the very rocks upon which all is built.
Principles never change. Men through selfishness and perversions attempt to
change what principles mean but their attempts are always unsuccessful.
We would cry havoc if a club or religious organization denied its members the
right to leave those organizations. If those entities attempted to restrain
their members by force in order to keep them in the fold we would promptly call
upon the police to use force to free those that wished to leave. In America this
seems to us to be justice and this is a concept we understand and support.
In contract law we are willing to see the letter and terms of an agreement
carried out. However, when one party to the contract fails to live by the
agreement we are perfectly willing to allow the aggrieved party relief from
their portion of the contract. In our mind this is justice.
Why then is it such a difficult leap to apply these same principles to
government and how we are ruled? Are we property that belongs to the
national government? Are we citizens of that government or subject
to it? If a segment of the population believes that the contract with the
government has been violated by the government itself who is the arbitrator of
this dispute? Is the government itself the final judge of its own actions? Is
that justice?
We are in fact not subjects to the central government. The people through the
sovereignty that they granted to the states gave birth to the federal
government. The people (the
14th Amendment notwithstanding) are citizens of the
various states. It is the people through the sovereignty of their state that are
the final judge of the federal government and the status of the contract of
government. There is no other reasonable state of affairs. To accept the federal
government as supreme to the entities that gave it birth and give it unilateral
power to determine if its actions are just can only lead to tyranny.
In a nation that wishes to remain free the notion that the people retain the
ultimate right to establish a form of government to their liking must remain
paramount.
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