Posted on 09/25/2014 4:57:37 PM PDT by huckfillary
American secessionists and states' rights advocates are rightly disappointed by the outcome of the September 18 Scottish Independence Referendum. Given the decisiveness of the outcome, the result was probably never in doubt. The Queen didn't even have to break a sweat, in keeping with her lifelong abstinence from productive labor. I'll bet she's never even broken a fingernail polishing the royal silverware. But I digress.
Americans of every political persuasion have every reason to be troubled by the Scottish plebiscite. Not because of the outcome, but because we do not have the same right to secede from our Union by peaceful means. Americans should be asking themselves and their government, "Why do the Scots have the option of leaving their political union by referendum, but our own states do not?" Indeed. This is a valid question and an issue I believe we'll be hearing a lot more of.
Recent polls indicate that given the opportunity to leave the Union, the outcome today in just about any state would likely resemble the outcome of the Scottish Referendum. But that's today. What about two, four, or ten years down the road? Political and economic conditions change---happy campers today are crying in their beers tomorrow. While unpopular, even ridiculed today, secession could well have broad popular support at some point in the future. But unfortunately, our states have no right to peaceably secede.
Self-determination is a fundamental right. Well, at least in Scotland and Quebec. In this regard, we are hardly better than the Chinese with respect to their western Muslim minorities, or the Russians and Ukraine. How dare we call out Putin on issues of Ukrainian sovereignty, when any serious moves toward sovereignty by a U.S. state would be smothered by any means fair or foul, or if necessary, violently quashed? We have only to look at our own history for precedence in this matter. So much for that "land of the free" rubbish.
The United States was founded by secessionists. The moral justification for secession was powerfully articulated in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration could just as well have been called the Declaration of Secession; the War of Independence could just as accurately be termed the American War of Secession.
Despite the Founders' support for secession in 1776, the Constitution written 11 years later is silent on the issue. While the Founders made provisions for the admission of new states (Article 4, Section 3), the issue of secession was unaddressed. Proponents of secession and states' rights advocates have long held that since the Founders themselves were secessionists in 1776, they could not possibly have been opposed to it afterwards. But this is huge leap of faith. Politicians, as we know, change positions all the time, sometimes overnight, sometimes gradually over the course of many years. Today's revolutionaries are tomorrow's reactionaries. The political circumstances in 1776 were very different from those in 1787. By then, many of the Founders had become disillusioned with revolutionary ardor and the Articles of Confederation. As we know, the Founders' failure to address secession, intentional or not, had tragic consequences four score and seven years later.
Today, one hundred fifty years after the Civil War, our states still do not enjoy a constitutionally-sanctioned mechanism for exercising the fundamental right of self-determination, to peaceably secede from the Union. While the Constitution grants us no legal recourse, the moral and philosophical case for secession remains indelibly articulated in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration culminated the centuries-long struggle begun at Runnymede in 1215 that witnessed man's tortured journey from subject to citizen, and government from master to servant. It marked the dying gasp of feudalism and one of the first fruits of the Enlightenment. Jefferson's impassioned words remain a source of inspiration to all who yearn for liberty.
Secession is the ultimate check on the power of an oppressive state. Our government has long since forfeited any claims to legitimacy or the allegiance of its citizens. The "long train of abuses" so eloquently and meticulously detailed by Jefferson should should serve as the template for nascent secession movements across the country.
Anybody who doesn’t understand that the socialists of Scotland sought independence only so they could cuddle up to the much bigger government of the EU, isn’t someone with the brains to talk secession here.
LOL!
Apples vs oranges
Im not sad it failed. I dont wish for the break up of other nations to further some cause in this country.
I assumed the independence movement in Scotland was a conservative leaning thing till I started paying attention. They were talking about the Brits like the left talks about tea partiers. They were saying that brits are “europhobic” and anti immigrant racists.
The independent, self reliant Scots we think of in America from our own Scottish and Scotch-Irish immigrants is long gone, a thing of the past.
The brits should start shipping their immigrants north and watch how fast the Scots get over their love of them.
If they do that, I’m getting a patent on my sheep chastity belt and making a killing.
Here’s the difference:
In the United Kingdom, the Queen is the sovereign.
She let ‘em have a vote.
In America, We the People are the sovereign.
Convince a sufficient majority of them to let a part of their country go, and it would be so.
Otherwise, nope.
1. The Civil War was fought in part to prevent the South from seceding and continuing with slavery.
2. It would be too expensive. Regardless of the fact that taxes paid by citizens of a seceding state were used to build federally funded infrastructure such as freeways and dams, the feds will declare that they will need to reimbursed for the full current value of all federally funded projects within the state. No state could afford to pay the price tag of secession.
3. It wouldn't be Constitutional. The Declaration of Independence isn't the Constitution.
4. If Texas, or some other nominally Republican state, made noises like they were going to secede, all of the other Republicans would start making huge gestures to keep Texas in the fold lest the Republican candidates in the remaining US become unelectable at the federal level.
5. When given a chance to take the red pill or the blue pill, most people take the blue pill. Most people have way too much drama in their workaday lives to want to add secession to the mix.
6. Most states already sold their souls to the feds. What state still has a bonafide militia that compares favorably to the federalized National Guard? What state really wants to take over the full cost of ownership of federal lands? What state wants to give up its share of the highway fund? What state is capable of maintaining dams and levies without the aid of the Army Corp of Engineers? What state is capable of supporting all of the welfare programs that much of their corrupted citizenry now depend on? Yes, if somehow a state succeeded in seceding its citizens would no longer have to pay a federal income tax. But would the politicians have the will and the ability to instantly raise the state taxes to meet the demands of all the freeloaders in their borders?
Thank you all for your thoughtful replies.
On the contrary, in the United Kingdom Parliament, not the monarchy, is sovereign, and has been so for a good few centuries. The Queen had nothing to do with 'permitting' the Scottish referendum. The devolved Scottish Parliament decided it would hold a referendum, and the United Kingdom Parliament agreed it would honour the outcome.
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.