Independence, not reform
Dr Michael Hill, president of the largest Southern nationalist organisation, recently wrote on his Facebook page:
From its inception in 1994, The League of the South believed it impossible to reform the American political system. If our anti-Federalist and Confederate ancestors were right (and we believe they were), then this is the only logical position we could have taken. It is our position that any effort that seeks to reform the current system is a waste of time, energy, and resources. We will not support reformist half measures in a vain hope of defending and preserving our God-given rights and prosperity.
Consequently, the League advocates the full measure of Southern independence. As our President Jefferson Davis said, all we ask is to be “left alone” to rule ourselves, solve our own problems, and, with the blessings of Providence, make our own future. We seek nothing but what is rightly our own. We invite all Southerners (and others) of good will to join us in our noble cause.
Deo Vindice!
Tags: dr. michael hill, independence, league of the south, secession, southern nationalist, states rights
This entry was posted on November 14, 2011 at 3:40 pm and is filed under News & Ideas. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
FSI!!
For those who remember my last posts, I still believe reform is possible and feasible. Reform is possible in any nation where the government is elected freely by the people and held accountable. Its the latter we need to work on. Presently in American politics it seems we can elect our leaders but they often divorce their actions from the consequences. Prime example by blaming it on the guy who came before. And made worse by at least half the people believing it. The sad truth is that many Americans when voting should they bother to at all, it seems in our last presidential election in 2008 132,618,580 out of 231,229,580 voted. Thats about 56.8%. But in a 2010 election only 90,682,968 voted out of 235,809,266. That is a whopping 37.8%. It seems the nation’s first goal should be to get the people active in the direction of their country. Even my father who votes all the time says that he is only voting for the lesser of two evils. That is a sad statement when government is a trust that is the servent of the people. Or supposed to be.
Wait, there’s a LESSER evil in the imperial capital of DC?
I love the idea of a free Dixie, but I have yet to be convinced that the South could survive the economic, military, and technology competition by becoming independent. We would start out with no official international support or recognition, and those nations that recognize us would only do so so that they oppose us. We would likely collapse from an unstable economy or military invasion before we had a chance to get on our feet. Why do you think that Dixie would be able to survive without support, and with much opposition? What makes you think we could escape the fate of our ancestors?
Also, what form of government would you advocate? If you do not support Federalism, what would you suggest?
I may sound like I’m hating, but I am genuinely wondering. I’d like to see the South free, but have not been convinced that it is possible. If you can convince me with reason, though, I would be glad to change my position.
A confederated republic with strong states right, very low payed representatives to help ensure a citizens government….
Strong state government with small state coast guard, and air force, and well regulated peoples militias county by county….
I have an idea on how to hold on to our freedom 100%, at the age of 18, or on finsihing highschool, all males would have to join in basic military training to ensure if we are ever called up, we will know how to fight, and know how it all works. This would also ensure the freedom of the people from government, they would fear us.
And I dont think anybody expects all states to go out at once, it will be one by one…
As for my state, Louisiana, the federal government collects well over 100 billion in import, and export taxes from trade along the mouth of the mississippi river. The current budget of louisiana is 28 billion, now think if that was going to Baton Rouge, we could fund our state 3 times over, and also have money for a nice army. We would also never pay income, sales, property taxes ever again…We would have people killing themselves to come do business here, our economy would boom.
Here are the factors that point against a US military response to state independence:
1) Division of ideology: As of September 2009, according to a Zogby poll, 42% of members of the armed forces and 41% of people who have a family member active in the armed forces agree secession is a right. More recent data indicates that this number is higher and right at 50% for both polling groups. In other words, at least half of the military SUPPORTS the right of any state to leave the Union.
2) Practicality: For the United States to militarily suppress a state whose citizens had voted to leave the Union, it would be forced to examine the practicality of such an exercise.
Fact 1: The United States military has an active duty strength of slightly over 1.5 million.
Fact 2: One out of every ten active duty service personnel are Texans.
Fact 3: 40% of the active duty service personnel are from states that have active 10th Amendment, sovereignty or secession movements.
Fact 4: The ratio of support troops to combat troops is 7 to 1.
Fact 5: Of the active duty troops, most are currently deployed in the Afghanistan and Iraq theaters or are deployed in other countries engaged in support roles.
Fact 6: The number of actual US combat troops on US soil is at one of its lowest levels in history.
Fact 7: The number of new recruits for the US military has dropped drastically in all branches for the past several years.
Fact 8: US troops are stationed in over 100 countries across the globe.
3) Psychology: The people of the United States do not have the will to watch the Federal Government militarily suppress a state whose people vote to leave the Union. People in New York aren’t comfortable watching bombed out cities in Iraq and Afghanistan. They would certainly not be comfortable with seeing a WalMart in Houston that had been carpet bombed by the US Air Force on the nightly news. As there is no moral issue to rally the US around to prevent secession, military force would be a hard sell to the American people.
4) World Opinion: The United States had a hard time scraping together international support for the invasion of Iraq to topple a dictator even with the song-and-dance of weapons of mass destruction. They would be incapable of rallying international support for the military suppression of any state whose people vote to leave the Union. Especially since they supported the breakup of the Soviet Union, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the independence of Kosovo, the secession of Eritrea from Ethiopia, the secession of East Timor, the autonomy of Taiwan, etc.
The Federal Government would have to overcome these significant obstacles to even begin considering military suppression of a state whose people voted in a lawfully conducted referendum to leave the Union and declare independence.
To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The United States Constitution gives a specific definition of the word treason and to accuse someone of seeking self-determination for their state is accusing them of a specific criminal act.
Any person working for their state to govern itself and dissolve political entanglements with any other nation, properly extending the right of self-determination to its citizens, that does not conspire with a foreign power or seek to declare or initiate war against the United States is not guilty of treason.
After the Civil War, Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, was arrested and placed in prison prior to a trial. The trial was never held, because the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Salmon P. Chase, informed President Andrew Johnson that if Davis were placed on trial for treason the United States would lose the case because nothing in the Constitution forbids secession. That is why no trial of Jefferson Davis was held, despite the fact that he wanted one.
I see a number of problems with that:
A small state military will not be worth much during an invasion. If drug cartels began seizing territory throughout Texas, how would Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, etc. be able to help defend if all they have is a small state military? We would have to have some sort of national military, militia, or defense corp. Right now in the US, we pretty much have a standing military. If, in the new South, we had a national defense corp that was trained to be able to rise up and enter other states in time of invasion, then we could protect ourselves. But with only state militias to guard us, we would die slowly from a creeping takeover of our lands.
Regarding the sending of 18 (or around) year-olds into the military, I have seen that at work before. It sounds good in theory, but never works as well in practice. The Swedes did that and had one of the most (or the single most) powerful military of their time, but they soon found that they died from starvation and a dead economy. When you put your young men into the military, then they are either away from home or dead at the time when they would normally be working out in the fields and establishing their own homes. Food shortages occur, and economies plummet. The Swedes required lifetime conscription, though. Hopefully our leaders would not be inept enough to require that, but even a limited conscription brings problems. I have adopted siblings from Russia that grew up in an orphanage. In Russia, every male has only the military to look forward to at 18. Not permanent, but still with a high chance of death and with the constant hardship of Russian military life. The Russians, however, also have a law that any man attempting to escape military service is imprisoned. After all, how else do you enforce it? The simple truth is that many of them choose either prison or a criminal group. Many also try to run, and become fugitives. Others escape to other countries and become illegal immigrants. In the end, what is meant to be a form of protection ends up being a form of tyrranism. There is nothing wrong with trying to make sure that your citizens know how to and are equipped to defend themselves, but I do not believe that is the way to do it. That policy is one of the many reasons why Russia is quickly dying as a nation.
If one state goes at a time, though, then each state will be incredibly vulnerable. What happened when South Carolina tried to secede? The Union tried to reinforce Charleston Harbor, forcing the SC men to shell the fort. If only one state secedes at first, then it will be incredibly vulnerable. It will either be crushed by Federal military forces or by overwhelming international economical opposition, or will start a wave of secession across the nation as other states see freedom in their grasp. Both scenarios are likely to end in bloodshed.
I do agree with you on the issue of an economy independent of Federal meddling. The less federal taxes we have, the more money we can make. How would we maintain our nation, though, without nation-wide taxes and government? If, say, we were invaded, where would the money come from to support our army? It would have to come from all the states and be routed through a nation-wide system, which, in turn, would need nation-wide administration, which, also in turn, would require more taxation. How would we raise the money for a national defense force without national taxes? Also, if we ever had to send men into another nation’s territory, how would we do so without taxation of the national whole? Unless we operate more like Scotland with its clans, in which each group gathered through favor, deals, and treaties as much clannish support from its neighbors and then each clan sent representative warriors. Such a system has each state controlling its own forces, raising its own forces, and funding its own forces. Yet, such an army, made up of so many groups, *must* have a solid overall command. It must be controlled, in large part, by a national hierarchy. The nation would work in peace, much like an army would in war. It would be chaotic. States would take sides and make exclusive treaties. Small states with less resources would be left to squander in unfortunate situations without a national support system. They would become divided and unsupportive and would tear apart our confederation.
Sorry, I did not see your second two post as I was writing mine. Give me a while to read through them. I’ll probably post a reply tomorrow when I have time.
I did not say they would stay in service, no, that is a bad idea…I said training, maybe a few months or so would help to teach them.
Yes, I do see the need for a standing army, you you have to offset that by having a well trained citizen force as well..
Basic training is only 8 week in most branchs.
Most states have militias or guard units. Free confederate states with militias or guard units have a commander and are under the governor of that state. An agreement can be made amongst the free states of the Confederacy that a “joint chiefs” on a national level, comprised of these state commanders, in times of national crisis, are then under the jurisdiction of the POTCS. Something along those lines…it’s a very rough and crude idea that would definitely need polishing.
As far as border patrols with Mexico, etc., Texas and the other states would have the money since there’s not a DC vacuum cleaner sucking the tax money from their citizens, so my bet is that these states would have a better and more efficient way of protecting themselves than what is currently in place.