Where Scotland failed, could New Hampshire succeed?

Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
10,554
Where Scotland failed, could New Hampshire succeed?
Jason Sorens, a visiting professor at Dartmouth College and co-founder of the Free State Project, is author of Secessionism: Identity, Interest, and Strategy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...-scotland-failed-could-new-hampshire-succeed/

...a majority of Scots voted against independence from the United Kingdom. Their desire for self-determination, though, is easy to understand: The same impulse motivates present-day demands for federalism and state autonomy in the United States. Over the past decade, for instance, the Free State Project has been drawing libertarians to the relatively libertarian-friendly state of New Hampshire to pursue smaller government. Could New Hampshire or another state (one in four Americans want their state to secede, according to a poll last week) ever hold its own vote on independence?

From the perspective of the libertarians, there are good reasons for frustration with the federal government. The United States is a very large country and, as Francis Fukuyama noted in “America in Decay,” a recent essay for Foreign Affairs magazine, the nation’s massive size and clunky institutions have made the country less and less governable. Bureaucratic “kludge” continues to grow. The number of pages in the federal register, one indicator of regulatory burden, had grown to over 80,000 in 2013, a quadrupling over the 1970 figure. The United States’ economic freedom ranking in the world has fallen from second in 2000 to nineteenth in 2011. Its government now enjoys the twin ignominies of incarcerating and shooting dead more of its own citizens per capita than any other industrialized country, by far, even though its violent crime rate is not much above average.

Political scientists have found that more populous countries are more decentralized, because government becomes less and less effective over larger populations. Spain, Britain, Belgium, Italy and Canada have all decentralized over the past 50 years. But the United States has gone in the opposite direction. In 1913, according to Census Bureau data, local governments raised 56 percent of all taxes in the United States, and state governments another 12 percent. Today, those numbers have flipped: The federal government raises more than 55 percent of all taxes, and local governments account for only 15 percent.

A more workable country would let state and local governments go their own way on more policies, but a more just country would also be based firmly on the principle of free association. Free association is the original American way. The country was founded on an act of secession.

Consider New Hampshire’s possible future. While the Free State Project does not endorse independence for New Hampshire – or any specific legislation – its “Statement of Intent” endorses government limited strictly to protecting people’s rights. Free Staters generally support more autonomy for the state. If the federal government won’t let New Hampshire opt out of the vast federal Leviathan, then what? New Hampshire joined the union on condition that it remain a fully sovereign state free to break the tie with the United States if that link were no longer in its interest. Article 7 of the New Hampshire Constitution declares that “the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.” Banning secession would break this original agreement.

Continue reading
http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...-scotland-failed-could-new-hampshire-succeed/
 
As with Scotland, the outcome is dependent (as always) on who counts the votes.

The trick is to become the ones who count the vote. To do this though you have to vote really hard for a long time, without getting your bones broken in the process. (Voting is serious business)

If you just vote hard enough, anything is possible!
 
The trick is to become the ones who count the vote. To do this though you have to vote really hard for a long time, without getting your bones broken in the process. (Voting is serious business)

If you just vote hard enough, anything is possible!
Vote early and often, especially if you're dead.;)
 
probably not NH, but within 10 years a state will . maybe TX, maybe Alaska or Hawaii. Quebec will probably leave Canada first.
 
First, it should be acknowledged that intramural conflict has been in character for Americans since the earliest settlements, when Puritan New England faced off against Royalist Virginia in the English Civil War. More than a century later, the Revolutionary War was barely won when the states, never quite friendly, were at each other’s throats, and the infant nation came close to being strangled in its crib.

It was in part to avoid the danger that the colonies would break into competing regional confederacies that the founders plotted to hold the Constitutional Convention of 1787. But even when the new Constitution made secession illegal, the impulse to break up stayed strong. Serious state and regional threats of secession flared up in 1799, 1814 and 1828. Fifteen years before 11 Southern states did secede in 1860, sparking the Civil War, William Lloyd Garrison called for the North to secede under the banner of “No Union With Slaveholders.”

I must have missed that part.

Somebody please point out where the 1787 constitution makes secession illegal?
 
I must have missed that part.

Somebody please point out where the 1787 constitution makes secession illegal?

That depends on your interpretation of the Constitution. Most people seem to accept the 1861 interpretation.

Justice Scalia said:
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

But to more specifically address your question:

Article 1 Section 10 said:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation

By seceding, a state essentially is entering into an alliance with itself, therefore the constitution forbids it. Of course, there is a chicken or the egg problem here, but again -- that was resolved in 1865.
 
Last edited:
By seceding, a state essentially is entering into an alliance with itself, therefore the constitution forbids it. Of course, there is a chicken or the egg problem here, but again -- that was resolved in 1865.

So by seceding, the new nation is no longer subject to the 1787 constitution, and thus rendered moot.

If you are suggesting war against a people peaceably leaving, do you really want to see millions of people killed for exercising their right of self determination?
 
So by seceding, the new nation is no longer subject to the 1787 constitution, and thus rendered moot.

If you are suggesting war against a people peaceably leaving, do you really want to see millions of people killed for exercising their right of self determination?

A wise man once said it best:

"Secession would destroy the only democracy in existence and prove for all time - to both future Americans and the world - that a government of the people could not survive."

If our great democracy, for the people, and by the people, is to survive, our country must sometimes attack its people. For democracy. Or for its people. One of the two. Or maybe its for the country. Not sure.
 
Article IV, Section 4, states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." This clause was cited by President Lincoln to justify a war to prevent secession:

"f a State may lawfully go out of the Union, having done so, it may also discard the republican form of government; so that to prevent its going out, is an indispensable means, to the end, of maintaining the guaranty mentioned; and when an end is lawful and obligatory, the indispensable means to it, are also lawful, and obligatory."

http://blog.jimostrowski.com/articles/secession.html


Apparently this was Lincoln's Constitutional basis for the war. There's a few (a lot, actually) holes with his reasoning here, and he actually broke about 10 different clauses of the Constitution just by invading the south, but hey, he freed the slaves, so it's ok.
 
By seceding, a state essentially is entering into an alliance with itself
I believe that it takes at least two to tango.

alliance |əˈlīəns| noun
a union or association formed for mutual benefit, esp. between countries or organizations: a defensive alliance between Australia and New Zealand | divisions within the alliance.
• a relationship based on an affinity in interests, nature, or qualities: an alliance between medicine and morality.
• a state of being joined or associated: his party is in alliance with the Greens.
ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French aliance, from aliere ‘to ally’ (see ally1) .

That is stretching Article One,Section Ten pretty thin.

If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”)

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist in 1892,over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified.
It is hard to believe that a Supreme Court Justice would mention it in a decision.

If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.
Yep,the old might makes right,hard to argue with that one.Except that it is painfully obvious that the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc dissolved their union easier and with less bloodshed than we will ever dissolve ours.
 
Might makes right.

Until there is enough people that would die for independence there will be none,whether it is obtained by voting or weapons.The Scots simply chose pensions and government jobs instead of independence.You can't blame the English for voter fraud when you can't even inspire more than 50% of your people that independence is better.Going into that vote with anything less than 60-70% support is shameful.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top