Is secession treason?

[otherone]

" 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 ??

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

I bring this up to highlight that the USA is actually a THEM, a plural, not a singular entity. And while a State can't commit treason, as it is not a person, certainly the signers of the DoI were held to be committing treason. So, as an example, if the legislature of Texas said "eff off" to the federal government, are those persons complicit committing treason? It doesn't seem so based on the wording of the Constitution.

 

[TheTexan]

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.

Yep. These are the kinds of discussions and debates we need to be having.

 

[oyarde]

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?

Yeah , I think a County would do it.

 

[otherone]

Yep. These are the kinds of discussions and debates we need to be having.

If I'm not mistaken, every State's Constitution has it's own definition of 'treason', which necessarily differs from the the US Constitution's.

 

[oyarde]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

I bring this up to highlight that the USA is actually a THEM, a plural, not a singular entity. And while a State can't commit treason, as it is not a person, certainly the signers of the DoI were held to be committing treason. So, as an example, if the legislature of Texas said "eff off" to the federal government, are those persons complicit committing treason? It doesn't seem so based on the wording of the Constitution.

Hmmm , interesting ...

 

[jmdrake]

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.

If you fight with violence yes. But if you assert yourself non violently you may bring down the wrath of the goons of the state but not the ordinary people.

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.

As governor, Rick Perry flirted with secession. It was not because he cared about his fellow Texans but because secession had become a popular buzzword. Would you be willing to fight for and live in a "free" state of Texas run by Rick Perry? Because I wouldn't. When the South seceded they didn't really have "legitimacy" in the eyes of their own people either. If they did they wouldn't have been the first side to institute a draft. That's right. Rich planters in the South seceded largely because they wanted to protect slavery. They said so in their secession declarations. Sure there was other reasons, but that was the primary one. Tariffs were an excuse. Tariffs were at historic lows when Lincoln was elected president. The Morrill tariff would not have passed but for the southern senators abandoning their positions. And to show how much these Rich planters loved slavery, they enslaved free white men through a military draft to fight their war for them. Oh sure, the North soon followed suit with a draft of their own. Later a Northern general would go so far as to temporarily enslave free blacks in Nashville to help him build Ft. Negley. A pox on both houses.

Here's the bottom line. Nobody should be eager for war. Nobody. No matter how just you believe your cause to be, war inevitably leads in the long run to more harm than good. Organize for mutual self defense? By all means. But let the fight come to you. Never go to it. The south should have never fired on Ft. Sumpter. Once the war started they should have stayed in a defensive posture. Southern senators should have remained at their posts and waited for Lincoln to force them out. If all they really wanted was free trade, they should have preemptively freed their slaves to take that argument off the table. What should they have done to those free slaves? Put them on a train headed north and let the northern states figure that out.

 

[jmdrake]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

I bring this up to highlight that the USA is actually a THEM, a plural, not a singular entity. And while a State can't commit treason, as it is not a person, certainly the signers of the DoI were held to be committing treason. So, as an example, if the legislature of Texas said "eff off" to the federal government, are those persons complicit committing treason? It doesn't seem so based on the wording of the Constitution.

Irrelevant. The U.S. constitution gives the U.S. congress unfettered power to declare war against a foreign country. So let's say states did have a right to secede and form a new country. Okay. The U.S. congress has unfettered power to declare war against that new country. Now maybe you say "Well that's preemptive war and preemptive war is wrong". Preemptive war may be wrong but it is not unconstitutional. I don't know of any former confederates that after the civil war were tried for treason. General Lee certainly wasn't. Jefferson Davis wasn't. If any were that was the exception and not the rule. Whether this was an act of treason or not doesn't matter because the treason clause wasn't needed to declare and fight a war against what was then a foreign power.

 

[Black Flag]

It's only treason if you lose.

Exactly, to a "T"

 

[otherone]

So let's say states did have a right to secede and form a new country. Okay. The U.S. congress has unfettered power to declare war against that new country. Now maybe you say "Well that's preemptive war and preemptive war is wrong". Preemptive war may be wrong but it is not unconstitutional. I don't know of any former confederates that after the civil war were tried for treason. General Lee certainly wasn't. Jefferson Davis wasn't. If any were that was the exception and not the rule.

The Civil War is a poor example. The US was responding to military force. What justification could Washington have to 'invade' a former State? These aren't 'brown' foreigners ululating in an alien tongue. Do you think Americans would tolerate them murdering their parents and children?

 

[tod evans]

At 50k feet this sounds acceptable.

Drop down to 10k feet....What county in todays day is capable of self sufficiency?

Is anybody on this board aware of a county who's current government is acceptable?

What about gas-n-oil?

Would land-locked or coastal be better?

Barter or trade with the USA?

There's a lot of stuff to think about before anyone even gets down to the no more "federal money" problem.

 

[Pericles]

Yeah , I think a County would do it.

Working on it and hope to find out.

 

[tod evans]

And another thought.......

If a county actually seceded what is to say our good ol' government wouldn't buy off the elected government with pallets of 100's like they've been doing in the middle east?

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Would President Ron Paul allow a state to secede? I have a hard time believing he would allow the country to shatter under his watch.

 

[tod evans]

Would President Ron Paul allow a state to secede? I have a hard time believing he would allow the country to shatter under his watch.

This specific group of people would probably choose not to secede but who's to say another group might not want to?

I'm not hearing talk of secession as much as I'm hearing "i'm fed-up", what can be done?

 

[Matthew5]

Would President Ron Paul allow a state to secede? I have a hard time believing he would allow the country to shatter under his watch.

I'm not sure, he believes in State's rights. He'd certainly be in a pickle if Congress declared war on the newly formed country.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

I'm not sure, he believes in State's rights. He'd certainly be in a pickle if Congress declared war on the newly formed country.

State's rights or not, I doubt he'd allow a state to secede. I could see perhaps a community, but not an entire state.

 

[Pericles]

You do not have to seceed at the county level to be successful. Suppose you have a state with no income tax, and few items at the state level such as drivers license, car registrations, some professional licenses, but otherwise relatively benign. In a county with a small population, a part time sheriff (no other law enforcement), part time DA, a school enrollment of less than 50 students ....

A few freedom minded individuals can have a lerge impact - no zoning requirements, building codes, unincorporated areas, except for one town ....

A little capital, say a $1000 buy in that gets you an acre of land where you can register to vote. You quickly have a county government and school board that sees things your way. There are no state or federal "offices" in your county. It would only get better from there.

 

[jmdrake]

The Civil War is a poor example. The US was responding to military force. What justification could Washington have to 'invade' a former State? These aren't 'brown' foreigners ululating in an alien tongue. Do you think Americans would tolerate them murdering their parents and children?

You've basically described the South Carolina nullification crisis. The revolution where the state won. They didn't actually secede. They didn't need to. But they succeded. Then the fight was over tariffs. Tariffs are no longer the primary form of revenue. Now it is the income tax. States could theoretically take a form of civil disobedience to the income tax. Finding a state were most people were willing to do that...that would be a problem.

 

[jmdrake]

Would President Ron Paul allow a state to secede? I have a hard time believing he would allow the country to shatter under his watch.

I would be suspicious of any state that wanted to secede if Ron Paul was president.

 

[Pericles]

You've basically described the South Carolina nullification crisis. The revolution where the state won. They didn't actually secede. They didn't need to. But they succeded. Then the fight was over tariffs. Tariffs are no longer the primary form of revenue. Now it is the income tax. States could theoretically take a form of civil disobedience to the income tax. Finding a state were most people were willing to do that...that would be a problem.

I'd prefer to trigger the "crisis" over some idiotic regulation that 80% of the county would think stupid - the EPA or Education Department would be good candidates. The threat of force used in making the rule stick would be the critical decision some GS or SES puke would have to get approved and funded. That could be interesting, especially if the county emergency board saw it as a threat to public order and called on the governor for use of state military forces to prevent disorder.