The Principle of States Rights

It is never too late to put up a fight for freedom. True, the prospect for such a venture at this time seems bleak indeed, what with the prevailing madness to push more power upon the political overseer so that he might the better regulate our lives. Recruits would be scarce. From the rank and file, those who under all circumstances are determined to be harnessed, little can be expected; they are too preoccupied with mere existence. And those who seem to have the necessary ingredients – that is, those who have by their own initiative pushed themselves above the general level – are equally fervent for a regulated and subsidized existence under an omnipotent State. Subvention has become everybody's business.

The despair of those who still put a value on freedom is understandable. Perhaps, as they say, it is best to let the country have its fill of socialism – or fascism or communism or any other pup from the litter of absolutism – and be done with a quixotic struggle. After a century or two of that kind of existence, when human dignity shall have scraped bottom, a Moses will emerge from the bulrushes and gain a respectable following. By that time, they point out, the State shall have become emaciated from malnutrition, slaves being poor providers, and a handful of resolute men can push it over. It was ever thus. Every civilization we know of arose and flourished in the sunshine of freedom; political institutions attached themselves even at the beginning, but remained quiescent until an abundance of economic goods stimulated cupidity; then followed a period of increasing political predation until at long last the civilization disintegrated and became an historical or archeological curio. After a while, freedom germinates a new civilization. That is the inevitable cycle, and we can do nothing, they say, to prevent or retard it.

Maybe so; maybe our civilization is also doomed by the ineluctable forces of history; maybe it is in the decline right now. Nevertheless, men do what they are impelled by an inner urge to do, not what history dictates. The stars in the heavens tend to their eternal business while we transitory mortals travel within our own specific orbits. It was no historical imperative that directed the pens of those who signed the Declaration of Independence; it was the integrity of the signers. There were many at the time – the Tories – who deemed the venture foolhardy and undesirable, and they could have argued the historical uselessness of all revolutions. Nevertheless, the rebels (none of whom were driven to it by economic necessity) put their signatures to what at that time seemed to be their own death warrant. Why? For lack of better answer, let us say they were made of a particular kind of stuff and could not do otherwise.

Looking to history for causation, we find that man's constantly recurring excursions in search of freedom are identified by their leadership. The logical inference is that when men of that stripe appear on the scene the cause of freedom is not neglected. If, for instance, those who now prate about "free enterprise" were willing to risk bankruptcy for it, as the men of the Declaration were willing to risk their necks for independence, the present drive for the collectivization of capital would not have such easy going. Assuming that they are fully aware of the implications in the phrase they espouse, and are sincere in their protestations, the fact that they are unwilling to suffer mortification of the flesh disqualifies them from leadership, and "free enterprise" remains merely a mouthing.

The present low estate of freedom in this country must be laid to lack of leadership. Whether or not leadership could have averted, or can still stop, the socialistic trend, may be open to question; that a glorious fight for freedom might yet enliven the American scene is not. And, if we can trust the historic pattern, the odds are that nature will give us, in her own good time and at her pleasure, the kind of men that can and will make the good fight.

The American terrain, so to speak, is I fortuitously favorable for the forces of freedom. Not only is there a strong a supporting tradition, but the Constitutional form of government which grew out of this tradition is still in existence, though somewhat distorted, and could provide the favorable battle line. It must be remembered that from the very beginning of the country political power has been in bad repute; even though it is well on its way to religious status, political power in America still lacks the adulation that it receives from peoples long inured to submissiveness.

In the beginning, the Founding Fathers recognized the need of government in organized society, but were ever jealous of its powers. They knew that political authority is constitutionally incapable of moral inhibitions. It is force, and, like physical force, can be held in check only by an equal and contrary force. For that reason, when they came to organize a government to replace the one they had thrown out, they put into its pattern provision for a series of counterbalancing forces. Not only did they aim to keep the central government weak by a division of authority, but also pitted against it the governments of the component states. Freedom was to be preserved by keeping political power decentralized and off balance. The scheme worked well for a time, but no Constitution can of itself constrain the inherent tendency of power to expand; only constant surveillance and opposition can do that, and since the primary concern of man is the business of living, political power makes its way unnoticed. The present condition of freedom in this country is due entirely to the breakdown of the strictures laid upon the government by the Founding Fathers, most particularly the one providing for the dual form; the powers of the central government have been enhanced at the expense of the state governments. Hence, any campaign to restore freedom in this country must begin with an effort to reverse that process.

The virtue in the juxtaposition of local and federal governments is demonstrated in reverse by the careers of tyrannies. In no country where a totalitarian regime established itself did it have to contend with the dual system that obtains in this country. When Hitler came along there was still some semblance of the local autonomy that Bismarck had broken through, but it was too attenuated to stay the path of the conqueror; he had to meet nothing like our sovereign state governments, legally entrenched and supported by a tradition of voluntary association. Mussolini's march on Rome was likewise facilitated by the structural consolidation begun by Cavour, and the Czars had long ago effected all the centralization that Lenin needed. Again, for centuries the seat of ultimate authority had been London when the socialists took over: home government in England is merely an administrative agency.

When the trend toward centralization in this country took definite shape under the New Deal, its leaders ran head on into the impediment of divided authority. They set out to remove it. They went so far as to draw up a blueprint for a new political setup, one that would circumvent, if not obliterate, the troublesome state lines. In 1940 the National Resources Committee, in a report called Regional Factors in National Planning, proposed to divide the country into a dozen regional areas, as a basis for national planning and the coordination of federal administrative services. It was a proposal so violative of the spirit of the Constitution, if not the letter, that the committee made haste to give assurance; the regional organization, they said, "should not be considered as a new form of sovereignty, even in embryo." It would have been foolhardy to say anything else, especially since the consolidation of the states into a national unit requires, under Constitutional procedure, the joint action of Congress and the state legislatures. Nevertheless, the committee insisted that the "division of Constitutional powers" handicapped any program of national design; the report left no doubt of the necessity of overcoming this division as a condition for the federal solution of "otherwise insolvable problems." It was clearly a bid for a nationalized system; and in the propaganda of the day the prediction that the states are "finished" was uninhibited.

Thus, the proponents of planning, with its correlative of restrictions on individual initiative, are on record as to their strategic campaign. The separate states must be either wiped out or reduced to parish status. It is impossible to effect complete control over the individual of divided allegiance; he must have only one god. History is on their side; no political power ever achieved absolutism where the subjects were permitted to indulge more than one loyalty; the Caesars persecuted the Christians because, despite the homage they rendered Rome, they worshipped God.

Pending the organic consolidation of the states, the planners adopted a policy of conquest by purchase. Armed with the enormous revenues from the unlimited income tax, they have to all intents and purposes penetrated and almost obliterated state lines. All was done, is being done, in the name of "public welfare," but the political effect of flood control, public housing projects, farm subsidies, federal control of banks, loans and subventions of all sorts, has been to win public support for the central government and to discredit home government. The loyalty as well as the integrity of the citizenry is purchased by gratuities derived from its own substance, while bribery and blackmail reduce the petty local politician to subservience. For a brief tenure of office the sovereignty of the states is bartered away; such areas of independent action as are left to them are those the federal government has not yet chosen to absorb, like patrolling the streets or real estate taxation. Washington has thus become the American Mecca and, if not stopped by vigorous and uncompromising opposition, will become its Moscow.

The forces of centralization, then, have selected the "front," the line of battle, and there is nothing for the opposition to do but to meet them at this line. The issue is again the matter of states' rights, but this time vitalized with the issue of freedom. Specifically, it is the original American issue, before it became sullied with sectionalism and racialism; it is the problem that confronted the Founding Fathers.

The people of the recently liberated British colonies had had their fill of government from afar, of impersonal government, of government by decree. If they were going to have any government at all they wanted one

The wacky extreme libertarian semi-anarchism of LewRockwell.com and its proprietor (whom I know) is often off-putting. But it is essential to defend the Constitution and the Constitutional principle of states' rights at this time when the Commie/Nazi establishment media is busily trying to equate states' rights with racism. If we won't defend the Constitution and its essential principles, then what is the conservative movement for?

If we won't defend the Constitution and its essential principles, then what is the conservative movement for?

The problem is, the segregationists wrapped themselves in the states' rights mantle, and fouled it with their stench. We would all be better off if the Dixiecrats had of their own initiative stopped denying blacks their fundamental Constitutional rights to equal protection and freedom of association, instead of forcing the federal government to act. Since the feds had to act, it created a precedent of federal interference in state matters. So the blame here is firmly on the shoulders of the Dixiecrats and their ilk.

If you want to defend state's rights, you first have to completely and firmly denounce segregationism, and then work to ensure that segregationists have no place in the GOP or any other state's rights party. That is the only way to remove the taint associated with state's rights.

The Union, next to our liberty, most dear.
~ John C. Calhoun

"Our national Union, it must and will be preserved."

Andrew Jackson.

Walt

If you want to defend state's rights, you first have to completely and firmly denounce segregationism

That shouldn't be too hard. I hardly believe anyone today would run on a segrationist platform.

If we could just amend that silly 10th Amendment, everyone would be so happie :o)

Hehe! A day or two ago a poster told me that the "10th amendmend doesn't mean a thing." He went on to wonder if I could "cite a Supreme Court case where the 10th amendment is cited?"

I replied with a small list.

[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states."--Adolf Hitler

For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states.

So the "union" separated itself into 13 separate entities, called a convention, and then voted to allow 9 of the 13 to reform into that same "union", leaving up to 4 parts of the "union" all alone?

BWAAHAHahahahahahahahahah!

The things we know that just aren't so.

If you go back and re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, you will see that states have powers derived from the people and that only the people have rights.

I was confused on this point until another Freeper pointed this out.

You're right. States Rights are merely part of the process to guarantee liberty. When that process is used to hinder liberty, then the process is tainted.

To accept that the concept of state's rights should no longer be viable just because it was sullied by some of the nation, is to deny the entire nation the right of self-determination. Call their actions wrong, not one of the most important conerstones of the constitution. It is amazing to me we are willing to just throw that away, yet we do not hold the federal government to the same standard.

Don't people understand it's a living, breathing document???

Of course - why have an amendment process since we can just make it say what we want. To hear some of these posters, the states just got together and signed a document that said:

We, the people - not as separate and individual sovereign states, but as the amalgamated and undifferentiated people of the union (that created the 13 existing states, but it only takes 9 for this one), hereby delegate all rights and power to the ~~federal~~ national government, and the Executive will have the powers of the Legislative and Judicial branches, with all vested powers, and the states will be dissolved, with no retained rights, and this union shall be perpetual (just like the last one, excepting when a northern state wishes to leave), and the national government will maintain this "voluntary" union by force and invasion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.