Is secession treason?
- Thread starter otherone
- Start date
Athan
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,784
There is an alternative. "Insulate" ourselves from it. If the body around you will be killing itself, don't make yourself and your local group (Ron Paul Supporters) dependent on a potential corpse. America isn't a government. It is liberty, independence, people, and in ways a trade form. Make sure Ron Paul supporters near you can pool your resources and stay organized.
I'm not worried about WW3 or insurrection in the US. Mathmatically though we are going to suffer economically. THAT is a given as it is past unsustainable.
" Or in adhering to their enemies " ...... OK , who is the enemy ? Are the people not adhering to the Supreme Law of the Land the enemy ??"The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."
-James Buchanan
It strikes me as odd that our two most significant conflicts, the Revolution and Civil War, were both conflicts for self-governance, yet history doesn't call them 'secession'.
Article III section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
So a peaceful revolution is actually legal?
Shorty Dawkins
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2011
- Messages
- 48
Excellent point.
I have considered that , Bummer , but counties can ?
Shorty Dawkins
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2011
- Messages
- 48
When the great culling occurs, many more than the six hundred thousand who died in the War of Secession will die. And it will occur. It has been planned. You can die fighting, or go to your death pleading how unfair it is. They will just laugh at you. They are laughing at us now.
Shorty Dawkins
tod evans
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 36,071
I would think a county could secede from a state?
But I'm just some idiot out in the sticks.
I think I had made 9,706 posts without using the word " their " , so , I was tempted the replace it with "the".....
I think it has been done before , but I do not know where to look , probably Indiana , Kentucky or Tennessee ?
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,897
Why not? How many people does it requires to be a state? When the south seceded from the Union some regions in the south seceded from their states. West Virginia is one example. A region in North Alabama is another. Those North Alabama soldiers were some of Sherman's best troops when he burned Georgia.
TheTexan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27,426
Every individual has a natural right to secede. Unfortunately, like many of our natural rights, the people of this country will point a gun to your head if you try to assert it.
For secession to work, it must have legitimacy in the eyes of the people. The threshold for that legitimacy, I believe, is at the state level.
I am familiar with the West Virginia unit that participated in a battle along the Ohio River against Confederate Cav. , I am unfamiliar with the North Alabama unit ?
Why not a county ?
TheTexan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27,426
We could try it. Odds of success go down the smaller we go though, and I'm confident we could take a state.
BattleFlag1776
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 319
1st Alabama Cav.
Thank you , give me some reading this evening .
tod evans
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 36,071
I would think that a well armed, defendable county would stand a chance of secession, especially if the citizens were not overtly aggressive.
I'd bet there'd be some major noise in Washington if even one county had the guts.
One family= Randy Weaver
One "group"= Waco
Who knows?
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,897
"The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force."
-James Buchanan
It strikes me as odd that our two most significant conflicts, the Revolution and Civil War, were both conflicts for self-governance, yet history doesn't call them 'secession'.
Article III section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
So a peaceful revolution is actually legal?
I put the last part in bold because it's the most important part. We've had one successful peaceful revolution in this country. It was the nullification crisis. The president then was Andrew Jackson, beloved by southerners of his day for being the epitome of the "gentleman planter" (slave owning Indian killing tyrant) that they admired. Jackson is admired by (most) modern liberty lovers because he killed the 2nd bank of the U.S. But Andrew Jackson threatened to hang South Carolina secessionists. Back then the only issue on the table was tariffs. Clearly slave owning Andrew Jackson neither wanted to immediately end slavery (Lincoln didn't either) or restrict the expansion slavery (Lincoln wanted to restrict the expansion of slavery which would have led to its eventual abolition).
South Carolina stood up to Jackson on the issue of tariffs through nullification. But those South Carolinians had more patience then the ones who would later fire on Ft. Sumpter. They followed Jackson's admonition to "not fire until you see the whites of their eyes" to the letter. They didn't cooperate with the tariff, they didn't back down, they were armed and ready to fight if necessary, but they allowed the process to work itself out. In the end a face saving compromise was reached, the tariff they hated was abolished, war was avoided, and Andrew Jackson southern legacy was left untarnished (minus the slavery and Indian killing part). In contrast when Lincoln was elected, the southern senators abandoned their duty to their own states by resigning once secession happened. Yes I'm using strong words, but sometimes strong words are necessary. Had they stayed at their post, the Morill Tariff never would have passed. They could have kept congress hopelessly deadlocked on anything else Lincoln wanted to do. War could have been avoided again.
Now, really all of this secession talk has no relevance to the liberty movement. What state that might secede would any of you want to live in? Alabama where Ron Paul is currently in last place with 7%? Mississippi? Same thing. Tennessee? He got 9%. Oh yeah. The "free state" project. How many free staters who are into their "right" to walk around topless are ready to face down the full might of the federal government? The paradox is that those ready to "fight the new civil war" mostly don't give a rip about freedom in general. (Just like those who fought the previous civil war. Sorry but if they cared about freedom they would have freed their slaves and then seceded.) Those who care about freedom are small in number and/or not mentally prepared for the fight they are asking for. Nullification is the next best answer. Nullification >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secession.
kahless
Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,200
I am always surprised this is not discussed more here. Why not at some point redirect Ron's powerful grassroots organization to designate specific areas that were overwhelming pro-Paul in the primaries and hold a regional succession vote. If you can prove you have a majority of the vote and organization behind you, I think most peoples attitude will be to "let them leave".
This small region of counties could be used as an example of the success of the policies of the liberty movement. What better way to influence change at the federal and state level across the nation by having this living example.
Similar threads
