Good friend and your fellow freedom fighter Clint Richardson will be guest hosting for Dr. True Ott on MicroEffect this week. Click here for more information.
Peter Garritano thinks it’s time for Vermont to call it quits with America.
The way the 54-year-old automobile salesman sees it, the “empire” is about to implode and tiny Vermont can lead the way by becoming its own independent republic. So he’s running for lieutenant governor, topping a slate of secession-minded candidates seeking statewide offices this year.
Their name: Vermont Independence Day.
“The only hope is to just say, ‘Look, this isn’t working for us. We want to start fresh again, with a real democracy,’” Garritano said. “I think that’s the answer. Hopefully, it won’t take another horrible economic breakdown to realize that the people running things don’t look out for the little guy, or us, or the soldiers. It’s all about profit and getting the last drops of oil on Earth and trampling people’s rights.”
Garritano, gubernatorial candidate Dennis P. Steele and seven candidates for state Senate seats plan to declare their candidacies Friday.
Their cause isn’t new: It’s the latest incarnation of a movement that’s bubbled in Vermont and elsewhere for years. Alaska, Hawaii, New Hampshire and Texas all have made noise about seceding, to no avail.
Their method is: Organizers say it’s the first time since the Civil War that a secession movement has fielded a slate of candidates for statewide office, although individual pro-secession candidates have run before.
Few political observers give them much hope of winning, even in a left-leaning state where the popular Republican governor’s decision not to seek re-election has touched off a scramble among would-be successors, with five Democrats and a Republican in a wide-open race for the seat headed to the Nov. 2 election.
Unlikelier still is the idea that, if elected, the candidates could accomplish their goal, critics say.
“This is the triumph of hope over reality,” said Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont and a longtime observer of the state’s political scene. “The whole movement was spawned by having George W. Bush as president. My guess is that with (Barack) Obama as president and this being Obama’s second-best state, the wind has been taken out of their sails.”
In fact, Obama’s failure to close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has fueled some of the candidates’ positions.
Long on outrage about the status quo but short on details about the new order they envision, they say Vermont could establish its own Social Security system, tend to health care and maintain roads using the billions of dollars in taxes it could save by not paying federal taxes.
Steele, a U.S. Army veteran, says if elected he’ll call a statewide convention to consider articles of political independence and try to get Vermont National Guard troops returned home from the wars.
But as Dartmouth College professor of government Linda Fowler says, “The problem (with secession) always is the one the framers pointed out: Governmental units that are so small end up being vulnerable to their neighbors, in all kinds of ways.”
For now, the focus is on the campaign in Vermont, where the secession candidates — on a shoestring budget — plan a largely Internet-based campaign. As of Wednesday, they hadn’t launched a dedicated Web site, though one is planned.
Garritano, a Shelburne independent who’s never run for office before, promised his wife the campaign wouldn’t cost them much money. He’s sticking to that: So far, he’s spent $20 on business cards.
Come November, he won’t be identified as a “secession” candidate on the ballot; it will just say “independent.”
“If somehow, miraculously, I got elected lieutenant governor, I’d make an effort to get back some of our rights — right to freedom of speech, freedom of association and other Constitution-Bill of Rights things that have been taken away from us,” Garritano said.
Steele, a 44-year-old political neophyte from Kirby who owns Internet radio station Free Vermont Radio, says he’ll take a grassroots approach to campaigning — traversing the state in a recreational vehicle with his wife, 5-year-old daughter and 3-year-old son.
“The plan is to travel around the state with my family, try to make it a fun thing,” he said. “Go out, do some live broadcasts, pound some doors and then come back to the campground with my family in the RV.”
Former Gov. Thomas Salmon is among those who doubt Vermont will ever break its ties with Washington, D.C.
“Do I think Vermont has a realistic chance of seceding in the near-term, midterm or long-term future? No, I don’t,” said Salmon, who served in the 1970s. “We did our time as an independent Republic, from 1777 to 1791. I think one time as an independent republic is enough.”
This article is a letter to the governors of the fifty states of the United States of America.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
You are members of one of the most elite groups of Americans that exists. You are State Governors. There are only fifty members in your “club”. Senators have twice as many members in their group, and they are just a Quisling deliberative body. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives, and they are held in lower esteem than used-car salesmen. You are the Chief Executive Officers of states whose Gross Domestic Products rival some of the largest nations on earth.
In the beginning of the Republic, Governors were the leaders of sovereign nations. But, over time, the sovereignty of each state was subsumed by Statism. Still, being a Governor is an historic elected position in American governance.
Governors know first-hand how tough it is to get elected to the positions they occupy. And the office of Governor comes with huge power and perquisites. Thousands of people work for you, and millions live under your leadership. Consequently you, being mostly normal human beings, have big egos. You deserve to have a big ego, since you’ve accomplished a very rare feat by getting elected Governor.
Statistically, more Governors have become the President of the United States than have Senators or Representatives. So, the nation considers your experience as the Chief Executive of a smaller entity kind of the “farm system” for the presidential league.
Only a handful of Governors will ever desire the American presidency. A smaller handful will actively seek it, and there is only one President at a time. And of late, American Presidents get two terms if they choose. So, timing is everything for a Governor seeking the Presidency. Often, the timing doesn’t work out.
Consequently, once you become Governor, there isn’t much of a market for your services in higher office, since you’re about as high as you’re ever going to get in “public service.”
But every one of you American Governors could contend to become President of a nation.
But not the United States. The un-United States.
You could lead your state in the process of seceding from the United States of America, and your state could become a new sovereign nation.
Doesn’t the thought of being the Head Honcho of a new nation appeal to you? Wouldn’t you like to be on par with the Presidents of France, China, India, Germany, Brazil or Russia? If you like publicity, think of the worldwide focus that would be on you and your state as it becomes a new nation. You’d be like a rock star. Your every move would be a news story. Every success would redound to your leadership. School children worldwide would know your name, like they know the names of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, Founders of the United States, and Sam Houston, leader of the Texas revolution and first President of the Republic of Texas.
You would preside over the creation of a brand new nation, and be credited with lifting millions of souls from under the tyranny of an oppressive, uncontrollable government. Plus, you would be directly involved in the dissolution of the United States. Nothing of such import has been accomplished since the breakup and dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989.
There are a few caveats, however.
First caveat is your commitment. You’ll likely have to “put up or shut up” pretty early in the game, with no turning back. Once you hop on the back of the secession bull, you either ride the whole eight seconds and win, or fall off and get stomped by a pissed-off bull…to use rodeo parlance.
You’ll be leading a revolution. The Mobocracy Looter Minions in Washington DC will likely not invite you to their parties anymore. They may take a somewhat dim view of your revolutionary talk and revolutionary actions. They might be somewhat resistant to a Declaration of Independence or Ordinance of Secession with your signature on it. But, on the upside, it will be you that negotiates the terms of any treaties or diplomatic agreements with Washington. Sovereignty, like American Express card membership, has its privileges.
Most of your fellow Governors will not support you. They will only take their lips from the Washington nipple long enough to throw an insult or two your way. You’ll have to give up your key to the Governor’s Club washroom.
On the upside, your example of leadership may empower other more timid Governors to join you.
If you simply secede and try to replicate the government of the United States, your leadership and efforts will be destined to abject failure and worldwide ridicule. One of the reasons that the American Revolution of 1776 was successful is that it introduced the world to the Enlightenment ideals of governance, and gave them a new home outside Europe. So, you would have to embrace some very new/old and radical Enlightenment ideals for the structure of your new nation. An upside here is that you have the benefit of history that men like Thomas Paine and John Locke lacked.
But no guts, no glory.
For an example of what could be, let’s look at Texas. Governor Rick Perry has already spoken publicly about the possibility of Texas secession. But nothing has really been done since that statement in April 2009. I think “the Guv” has Presidential aspirations, but I could be wrong. If Governor Perry took the leadership position in the fight for Texas independence, he would be the presumptive favorite and lead horse in that race. However, he would have a very serious contender for the Presidency of a New Texas if Rep. Ron Paul joined the fray, since Paul has been talking the talk and walking the walk of liberty for decades. Putting these two men together as a team could be intimidating and fearsome.
But in your state, there probably is no other person with your name recognition that will challenge you for the new Presidency. And, if you are leading in the formation of the new government and the secession efforts, you will have the pedigree and record to thwart pretenders to your throne.
How do you lose? Where is the downside for you?
Zig Ziglar says “you can get anything in life you want if you’ll just help enough other people get what they want.” Nearly every person in your state wants individual liberty. Nearly every person in your state wants the crushing burdens of Washington taxation, future debt and regulation lifted from their shoulders. And, they share those desires with most other Americans who don’t live in your state.
Help them get it. It may be your last chance at greatness.
But if you can’t get next to the lofty ideals of secession, then think only of yourself and do the things that best promote your persona, reputation and place in the history of the world. Alexis de Tocqueville said that that persons who act to further the interests of others ultimately serve their own self-interest. If you help the populace get liberty, they’ll help you in return.
We have lots of ideas here at DumpDC to help you, Ladies and Gentlemen. Just click and read.
May God be with your choices, Governors.
Secession is the hope for humanity. Who will be first?
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776
Jefferson wrote that the People had a duty to “throw off” a despotic government.
“Throw off.”
That sounds to me like a somewhat unfriendly separation. It doesn’t sound particularly cordial. It also makes me think that the throwee ain’t exactly thrilled about getting thrown off and might take exception to the decision of the throwers.
The quote above is only once sentence from the Declaration of Independence. But it is one of the most seminal thoughts and principles of the document. Let’s take it apart and consider its words, their meanings, and the consequences.
“…A long train of abuses and usurpations…” In 1776 that was the caprice of King George III as he and his Parliament created laws that affected the colonies in ways that did not affect any other Englishmen. Those laws included the Stamp Act, various taxes and tariffs, prohibitions on imports and exports, more and more taxes, Redcoats patrolling American streets, the suspension of habeas corpus, and requiring those charged with crimes to travel back to England for trial.
Today, Washington has ignored the strictures of the Constitution of the United States, and has done so for over a hundred years.
It violates the First Amendment. There are plenty of laws that abridge free speech, not the least of which is the Patriot Act.
It violates the Second Amendment by enacting laws and regulations infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, simultaneously destroying the militia and making citizens less safe and states less secure.
It violates the Fourth Amendment through internet surveillance, airport searches and warrantless searches.
It violates the Fifth Amendment by rendition of American citizens without due process and IRS double jeopardy prosecutions. You also are compelled to be a witness against yourself every time you sign your tax return.
It violates the Sixth Amendment as no one gets a speedy trial.
It violates the Seventh Amendment when it does not protect the right to jury trial, but allows judges or administrative bodies to adjudicate cases.
It violates the Eighth Amendment as excessive bails and fines are imposed regularly.
It violates the Ninth Amendment as it ignores certain rights retained by the People.
It violates the Tenth Amendment by accruing to itself powers not delegated to it, and others reserved to the States and the People.
Need I go on? There are seventeen more Amendments.
“…pursuing invariably the same object…” What was that object? The object was to milk the maximum revenue from the colonies as possible. England had won the Seven Years War from 1756 to 1763 and were heavily saddled with war debt. So the more taxes and tariffs that King George laid on the colonies, the more the colonists rebelled. Then, the King made still more laws to bring the rebels to heel.
Washington’s object today is much the same. It has a crushing war debt as well as a crushing domestic debt load. Then add the mind-boggling financial liabilities, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae and the total comprises nearly 1000% more than the entire Gross Domestic Product of the USA. Then consider the ramifications of laws like The Patriot Act.
“…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism…”To evince is to show clearly. Colonists could see clearly that King George’s taxes and laws, designed only for the colonies, were a design to reduce their rights as free Englishmen and confiscate their wealth without due process.
Today’s long train of abuses and usurpations coming from Washington evince a design to accomplish the same objects by turning the Constitution on its head. The Federal Government of the USA started with very limited roles and clear restrictions. Washington’s design has been to acknowledge no restrictions on its power and to accomplish anything it desires.
“…it is their right, it is their duty…” American citizens may have rights that they do not exercise. But that is different than duty. Many Americans consider that military service is a duty, and there is nothing in the Constitution that states anything of the sort. But find me a person who argues with the content of the Declaration of Independence. If you run into a person who is against secession, show them the Declaration and see what they do with fulfilling their duty.
“…to throw off such government…” The process of state nullification does not throw off government. It merely attempts to control the actions of the government, and to nullify its unconstitutional laws while staying a part of the whole. Throwing off such government can only mean secession, which is the act of withdrawing formally from the United States of America.
“…and to provide new guards for their future security.” To explain this, we return to the Declaration for another quote: “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to 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.”
For the People to provide new guards for their future security can only mean to institute new government. That precludes and omits any continuing relationship with the old government.
That means secession.
State secession is the only reasonable, logical and pragmatic solution to overcome the absolute despotism and criminal tyranny pouring out of Washington, DC.
In this article, I will define secession and make a case why secession is the only reasonable, logical and pragmatic solution to further the cause of human liberty and functional governance.
What is secession?
“Secession” is broadly defined as “the act of withdrawing formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance.” We are defining it specifically as the action of a state to cease its participation in the United States of America and for that state to create itself as a new independent, sovereign nation.
The American Revolution of 1776 was, by definition, an act of secession. An association of English colonies banded together and issued a Declaration of Independence that was presented to King George III. The King did not accept the secession and a civil war ensued.
Remember that the Declaration of Independence in 1776 was not the legal, formal secession document originating within any state Governor’s offices or the state legislatures. The 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence were lawyers, merchants, farmers and others who took it upon themselves to place the King on notice of the intentions of a small minority of Royal subjects who did not wish to be subjects any longer, and who were leading a revolution against the King. (Read Secession and Attorneys
Another secession event happened in the United States in the 1860s. This time, it was the actual state governments that issued formal secession documents.
The misinformation widely prevalent in America about secession was written by the winning side of the American War Between The States of 1861-1865. They called it the Civil War. But it was not a civil war by definition.
James Fearon, a civil wars scholar at Stanford University, defines a civil war as “a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies.” Usually, one side of the conflict is the state.
Based on that definition, the actions of the 11 Confederate states in 1861 did not constitute starting a civil war. They weren’t looking to take power, overthrow the US government or change government policies. They just lawfully and peaceably seceded from the Union. The United States actually invaded a sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America, with the intent of overthrowing their government and bringing the states of the CSA back into the USA.
The most recent example of state secession happened in 1989 when the fifteen republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) seceded from the USSR. The USSR ceased to exist as all of the republics rejected the Kremlin government and became sovereign nations. (go to: Mikhail Gorbachev and Secession)
Despite the fact that the USSR was the second most powerful nation on the planet, it was completely powerless to stop secession. Once the republics reasserted their sovereignty as free nations, the USSR dissolved into the dustbin of history.
What is the difference in secession and nullification?
Nullification is the a legal principle holding that a US State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. It has its legal foundation in the 9th and 10 Amendments of the US Constitution. Nullification has been used by the states throughout US history to prevent unjust laws from being enforced.
The most noteworthy use of nullification by any state was the so-called Nullification Crisis of 1832. Congress had enacted a high tariff that South Carolina rejected in its Ordinance of Nullification, which stated that the tariff was unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable in South Carolina. The state made military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement. Congress responded by passing a Force Bill, authorizing President Andrew Jackson to use military force against South Carolina to enforce the tariff. But Congress simultaneously passed a new lower tariff that was satisfactory to South Carolina. So, Congress wisely chose to back down and compromise against the South Carolina nullification action.
Thirty nine states of the United States have passed Tenth Amendment resolutions in recent months, stating that they are prepared to re-assert their authority to determine which Federal laws will be enforced within their borders. A few have enacted firearms legislation which states that firearms and ammunition manufactured and sold within the borders of a particular state are not subject to Federal law and regulation. It remains to be seen if Washington will recognize the nullification of Federal gun laws.
So, we see that nullification is a method whereby a US state may effectively control the legislative process of the US Federal Government as it pertains to how Federal law is enacted and enforced within any state. Compare that process to secession, in which a state formally withdraws from the United States to become a sovereign nation. Secession asserts that the relationship between parties has ceased, and that all previous commitments are null and void.
Why should a state consider secession?
First, secession should never be considered for light or transient reasons. Disagreements come and go between parties, and can usually be negotiated to the satisfaction of all parties. But when a long list of abuses exists, when repeated usurpations of state authority are enacted, when the sovereignty of states is trampled and ignored, and when citizens suffer a diminution of both their natural rights and economic freedom, it is the duty of states to solemnly consider either altering or abolishing the government that abuses that state and its citizens.
Who benefits from secession and what are the benefits?
In today’s America, any seceding state will benefit from the repudiation of the United States’ debt load, which will result in the savings of hundreds of billions of dollars that the citizens of the seceding state will never have to pay. Otherwise, if a state secedes and forms a government just like the one from which they seceded, there is limited benefit to the state or the citizen. But if the state protects individual liberty, life and property rights, the citizens will be infinitely more free.
The citizens of a state that secedes benefit to the degree that the seceding state “institute(s) 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.” (from US Declaration of Independence)
Also, any persons who immigrate to the seceding state can experience benefits if they renounce their former citizenship and become a citizen of the seceding state. But, an émigré who did not change citizenship would receive benefit from simply living in the seceding state.
The business community in the seceding state will benefit instantly as the crushing weight of US Federal regulations would vanish. No longer would businesses be required to be the tax collector for the IRS. The economy of a seceding state would be expected to explode with new commerce directly attributable to the competitive advantages of the new state.
The new state government of the seceding state would benefit as they would be free of US government rules, regulations, usurpations and unfunded mandates. No longer would the seceding state be required to enforce US Federal law.
The seceding state would benefit from a general shared attitude of most people of hope, optimism and excitement about the future.
Immigration to the seceding state would explode as liberty-loving individuals worldwide would bring their talents, experience and gifts to the new nation seeking liberty and a bright future for themselves and their progeny.
Who doesn’t benefit from secession?
In this specific example of secession from the United States, the parties who do not benefit are the United States Federal Government and the states that remain in the Union. To them will fall the unconstitutional debt load in greater percentage than before secession. The US Federal Government will also receive no further revenue from the seceding state. Also, the citizens of the seceding state will no longer be available to the United States for military service. And, individual secessions will occur as Americans leave the USA to immigrate to the new nation…people voting with their feet.
The other individuals that will not benefit from secession are those presently receiving any Federal monetary benefits. It would be a reasonable expectation that Washington would stop any further payments or benefits from flowing to an individual who was no longer an American citizen. However, it would be possible that upon secession, some American citizens would continue to live in the seceded state as resident aliens. They could potentially still receive Federal benefits, but they should expect those terms to change.
Will state secession cause a military conflict between parties?
There is no reason in law or in fact that the parties may not mutually and amicably agree to separate from each other. It would be mutually beneficial to both parties to negotiate the secession issues, which would include issues of Federal lands inside state borders. But it should be stated that, in the 1783 Treaty negotiated between King George III of England and the United States of America, the King “relinquished all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”
The seceding state would also be aware that, if the United States Federal Government dissolved or collapsed in like manner to the Soviet Union, any previously negotiated issues or treaties would be null and void.
Can secession be done without armed resistance?
As stated in the previous paragraph, secession should proceed without military conflict. But, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution states that because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So, while no reason for armed conflict exists, that does not prevent it from occurring. A seceding state should revitalize its militia and prepare them for armed resistance and the defense of the borders of the seceding state from invasion by the United States military, its hired mercenaries, or United Nations troops.
Can Liberty be restored in America without secession?
The Washington political machine is spinning wildly out of control. Both political parties are two sides of the same coin. Neither party stands for Constitutionality, small government and fiscal responsibility. Even if you elect new representatives, senators and Presidents, the Washington culture will quickly corrupt them by requiring the officials to court contributions while lobbyists shower them with money and perks. In addition, Congress has created vast bureaucracies that grow and infest the nation unabated. Finally, and most importantly, the elected officeholders in Washington do not recognize any control or restraint on their power to enact unconstitutional laws and spend money in excess of tax revenues. Washington has borrowed trillions of dollars from the world that will never be repaid. If there is a solution to bring Washington back into compliance with the Constitution, I have not seen it to this date.
When should secession be done?
Secession should be solemnly deliberated by the elected representatives and the state citizens. Secession should be initiated at the moment that any state reaches the point at which it will no longer accept the despotic tyranny and unconstitutional laws coming from the US Federal Government in Washington, DC. Each individual must come to his or her own conclusion that secession is the only way to regain liberty, and each state must make its secession decision independently.
How would secession be done?
There is no written, formal method for initiating and completing an act of secession. If history can be our guide, we see that the conventions of the seceding states of 1860 wrote and ratified a Declaration of Secession. Each Declaration enumerated that particular state’s reasons for secession, in like manner to the 1776 Declaration of Independence.
Then they passed an Ordinance of Secession. Here below is the simple, succinct wording of the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession of 1860.
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America.”
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the “United States of America,” is hereby dissolved.
Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.
That is the sum of all the words necessary to complete the secession.
In conclusion, try to envision yourself and your family in a new nation created by secession. All the people you meet are excited and breathless in their anticipation of the future. The general opinion of the populace is pure unbridled optimism. The new nation’s economy is booming, the money is backed by gold and silver, and there is no inflation. “Now Hiring” signs are in all the shop windows. The newspaper’s “Help Wanted” ads are packed full. Prices for goods and services are low, and the stores are loaded with goods. Manufacturers are streaming into the new nation to take advantage of the rare pro-business atmosphere. Wages are climbing steadily in manufacturing jobs as companies compete for the best and brightest for their employees. New businesses are being created at a fever pace. Residential and commercial construction is at a high level to meet the demand of the new residents.
All because one state recognized this historic opportunity and chased the dream of liberty through the process of state secession.
Secession is the hope for humanity. Who will be first?
This is the definitive book on (1) how every American State has forsaken its DUTY to maintain a Militia, that force that is “necessary to the security of a Free State,” (2) how states can revitalize their Militias, and (3) how Citizen’s Homeland Security Associations (CHSA) may be organized.
This book should be read by every State governor and every State legislator in the USA. But it should be read by every citizen that desires liberty…true liberty in their lifetime.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
Vieira devotes five of the twelve chapters in the book to the formation and operation of the CHSAs. He contends that a program of public education be instituted to inform the public of the necessity of state militias.
Citizen’s Homeland Security Associations are completely different than the “Committees of Safety” of old. The CHSA is a grass-roots organization that will build awareness in the populace in anticipation of the formation of the Committees of Safety and legislative action on re-forming state Militias.
The original Committees of Safety were composed of actual members of the States’ legislatures, recognized activists and other leaders within the States…who were appointed to theCommittees by the legislatures, to serve as the legislatures’ agents and advisors, and to carry on the legislatures’ work during recesses. The Committees were never independent of the legislatures, and never carried out any plans that were not approved by the legislatures.
The chief concern of the Committees was the safety of the public: “to put the territory under their supervision in a state of defense and maintain it there effectively.”¹
The author wrote this book in 2007, and mentions that we don’t have much time to reinstitute militias in the states before societal events begin to occur that will throw America into chaos. It’s now almost three years since publication, and many of the events have taken place, while more events loom just over the horizon.
We can thank the government schools of the entire United States for the dearth of knowledge in the populace about the Constitution and the necessity of the State Militias. But what could we really expect? The very Federal government that benefits from the LACK of militias could hardly be expected to promote a concept that would diminish their power. Still, remember that the Federal Department of Education did not exist before 1980.
“Those who have been once intoxicated with power and have derived any kind of emolument from it can never willingly abandon it.” ~ Edmund Burke
So, what of the states? Education has always been a state issue. Can you think of any reasons that states would shrink from their obligation under their own state Constitutions to maintain a state militia?
How about these?
(1) State legislators and governors view themselves as servants of Washington.
(2) Maintaining a state militia is expensive. The money could be used for other purposes that would make more voters happier.
(3) Nearly 150 years have passed since the War of Northern Aggression, in which Lincoln called up the state militias to invade the Confederate States of America. So generations of state legislators have not seen a need for militias.
(4) Besides, states have a National Guard, don’t they? What’s the difference?
I’m sure there are others, but those reasons should do for now.
“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.” ~ John Adams
Here are some of my own thoughts on secession and state militias.
1. Any individual who has reached the age of majority in the United States who does not own a firearm has accepted the position that they have no duty to be a part of the well-regulated Militia that is NECESSARY for the security of a Free State.
2. Any state of the fifty states that comprise the United States of America that either has enacted or will enact any legislation that infringes on the individual right to keep and bear arms has accepted the position that a well-regulated Militia is NOT NECESSARY for the security of a Free State. That state government is an enemy to liberty and a lackey of Washington.
Patrick Henry did not say “Give me safety and security or give me death.”
3. There is seemingly very little interest in the general populace or the state governments to revitalize state militias. But there is interest coming from a restless citizenry about state secession. We must tie the two together into an inseparable bundle, as one relies upon the other.
4. Here is a forecast of how secession and militias will likely play out.
a. Economic meltdown, bank holidays, hyperinflation
b. Societal chaos, riots, rampant crime
c. Washington declares martial law and tries to clamp down
d. The grave crisis jolts states out of their slumber, and secessions begin
e. States NOW begin reformulating their militias
f. The citizenry, in full panic mode, get very focused on liberty issues
g. The United States goes the way of the Soviet Union and dissolves
This is an extremely exciting time in which to live in America. The people of the nation have been lulled to sleep over generations. The tyranny laid upon them is destructive, and any type of destructive force is based in low energy. Happily, freedom and liberty are creative forces of a very high energy level. Just like light dispels darkness, so too will liberty eventually win over tyranny. People will be drawn to the energy of liberty.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. … God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1787
¹Agnes Hunt, The Provincial Committees of Safety of the American Revolution (Cleveland, Ohio: Western Reserve University, 1904), at 161.
Few political observers give them much hope of winning, even in a left-leaning state where the popular Republican governor’s decision not to seek re-election has touched off a scramble among would-be successors, with five Democrats and a Republican in a wide-open race for the seat headed to the Nov. 2 election.
Get the RSS