by Russell Longcore,
In response to Dr. Edwin Vieira’s article, Russell Longcore writes:
Mr. Vieira has a long record of opposing secession. He has written extensively about the constitutionality of secession, and has concluded that it is not possible. Of course, I disagree with many of Vieira’s opinions.
Mr. Vieira also has his educational pedigree from Harvard, one of the very universities that helps fill the District of Columbia with eager and willing big-government sycophants. It would be indelicate of me to write him off as a Yankee lawyer predisposed to protecting the interests of Harvard and the DC gang. Indelicate…not necessarily incorrect. But one can be right on some issues and wrong on others.
I am far less concerned about the machinations of the New World Order crowd than Vieira and Baldwin.
Vieira’s assertion that America could resist the New World Order with adherence to its Declaration of Independence and Constitution is naivete at its highest exhibition. What he omits is that the Declaration of Independence is a document that asserts the sovereignty of thirteen “free and independent States.” Jefferson’s label of the “United States of America” was a decription of states united under a common purpose, not a new nation. There was no new nation at that moment. Even under the Articles of Confederation that were ratified after the war, the states were independent and sovereign nations.
So, a Declaration of Independence is only fit for a state asserting its sovereignty against the tyranny of an empire. It is absurd for a fifty-state conglomeration of un-sovereign serf states to make noises about independence when they cannot muster the courage to become individually sovereign once more.
As to the efficacy of the Constitution, I refer you once again to the Lysander Spooner epic work, “No Treason.” Spooner proves unerringly and irrefutably that the US Constitution has not now, nor ever at any time, held status as a legally enforceable document. So, I find that Vieira’s reliance on a constitutional argument is fatally flawed from its foundational premise.
Keeping a nation of fifty states and over 300 million people together as a single national unit has proven unworkable. When “We The People” was written by Thomas Jefferson, the population of the thirteen colonies was less than 3 million. So, each state was only a few hundred thousand souls. Smaller units of government more closely available to the people always function more efficiently. So, from the most elemental argument, smaller states are inherently more desirable than big nations.
Vieira is entirely correct that no state can secede without the power of the purse and the power of the sword. He is also correct to assert that no state possesses either of these powers and that no state is even preparing to secede.
The practical blueprint for secession that Vieira desires is quite simple, but not found in Baldwin’s article. But here it is:
1. Establish a money system based only upon gold and silver. That is the power of the purse.
2. Re-establish the “well-regulated militia.” That is the power of the sword.
3. Call a constitution convention in the state to rewrite the existing state constitution into a document of governance fit for a nation.
4. Draft a Declaration of Independence and an Ordinance of Secession.
5. Present the Declaration and Ordinance to the proper Federal authorities.
Done! Secession completed. Now the REAL work begins.
The practical blueprint for secession omits the practical realities of politics. To wit, no state government will consider secession until Washington’s system collapses. No state will voluntarily secede until the economic system is so hopelessly, irrecoverably destroyed that Washington can offer nothing more than hyperinflation and martial law. And even in the face of that desperate situation, only a handful of states will secede. The rest will meekly await their orders from their DC masters.
In conclusion, Vieira has deemed secession both unconstitutional and impractical. I assert that while secession is presently impractical, the constitutionality of secession is irrelevant.
Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first?
DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.
© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Sphere: Related Content
26. July 2010 at 11:04 pm
Russell,
Good article. I say that while, on another screen, I am actually in the process of reading John C. Calhoun’s ‘South Carolina Exposition and Protest.’ Calhoun wrote the article while South Carolina was fighting implementation of the Tariff of Abominations in 1828, but the issues of an onerous central government acting outside its constitutional charter are similar to may of our own challenges today. Calhoun promoted the idea of formal nullification by the states prior to actual secession, but both elements are included in his arguments for state sovereignty and control over the feds.
My greatest concern about life today is that we are no longer connected with a federal government based on the rule of law, rather we are now controlled by the rule of man. Marxist man at that.
27. July 2010 at 5:10 am
very interesting. i don’t understand how the discussion on secession continues after our very explicit explicit experience of the 1860s. the establishment of the republic was by the consent of representatives of the states, but when they wanted out it was not allowed. what is the philosophical basis for self-determination? if you read Great Powers it is clear that there are those whose vision of America require a substantial scale that does not allow for self-determination within its boundaries. so, it is not a discussion of rights at all, but as you point out – the purse or the gun. As The Who sang, “meet the new boss, same as the old boss, we won’t get fooled again.” but we did
7. August 2010 at 6:11 pm
I think you should be ashamed of yourself for impugning Ed Vieira. You imply his Harvard education made him a positivist. This is untrue. If we are going to splinter ourselves by shooting at our truest allies, we will assuredly “hang separately.”
Vieira’s article is sensible, and he makes points worth hearing. I was much more enlightened by that article than this one. Please engage his POINTS in debate, and offer alternatives if you can. Mere mantras (se-ceee-SION, se-ceee-SION,…) will not overcome practical problems. Vieira is very serious about action, and has proved it in his extensive self-education (See his 2 volumes works Crashmaker and Pieces of Eight), his wins for principle in Supreme Court cases, and is his continuing analyses and helps for coalition-building.
Indeed, who will be first? And have the costs been counted, the contigencies weighed, and is there some plan to how to defend it when the inevitable opposition bears down? This is not “negative talk”! We need to get past mere talk, and become serious.
11. August 2010 at 2:24 pm
Pat, in these days and times, one should not be castigated for pointing out what he deems to be serious and fundamental flaws in one’s opinion regarding restoring freedom. Vieiria is obviously very much anti-secession, to the point that he openly denegrates the idea in his articles just about any time he can. Russell firmly believes that secession is the form through which freedom will be restored, as do many today. How can Vieiria be protected in this regard when the opinions are fundamentally opposed and stand on completely different grounds? We should encourage the debate, not impugn others for calling out names for their positions.
13. August 2010 at 11:26 pm
Dr. Vieira is a personal friend of mine, I delivered a speech
written by him on Lexington Green at the founding of Oathkeepers,
and have also emceed a speaking event he participated in
at historic Faneuil Hall on the anneversary of the Boston Tea Party.
He has also discussed America’s founding and its early militia
system on a few of my podcasts.
I just wanted to point out that Dr. Viera now calls The South his home,
(not Massachusetts) and whenever I have heard him speak on his alma mattir, it is with a tone of reproval, never bragging.
For example when he spoke at Faneuil Hall in 2008, he pointed out to the audience that Harvard no longer teaches constitutional law by directly going through the document itself, but only indirectly by case law.
I read the entire series of essays on secession between him and Timothy Baldwin and believe it may represent the most scholarly debate on the topic seen since the days of the Great Triumverate, and I thank
both gentleman for their contributions.
I would certainly welcome a historic verbal roundtable debate between
both gentleman on the history podcast which I co-host, linked below.
Tricorn Tom — themidnightridecast.com
14. August 2010 at 1:48 am
Tricon Tom, I appreciate your words here. I respect Ed greatly, even though I do not agree with him on some issues. I believe he is a friend of freedom. Feel free to contact me regarding your forum.
14. August 2010 at 5:41 am
The US is in the grip of a terrible un-American power – that of war-making, violently racist, Jews-first zionism – manifested in control of the mainstream media, the universities, Congress and foreign policy… Google USS Liberty, Rachel Corrie, Neocons JINSA Iraq War, Mearsheimer Walt Israel Lobby, AIPAC, media Jewish control, etc etc
14. August 2010 at 6:24 pm
I don’t understand how succesion can be deemed illegal when the Declaration of Independence was itself in essence a declaration of succesion from the British empire. As for the unCivil War settling the issue, it has no more settled the issue then the 1939 Hitler-Stalin pact deciding the future of Poland. The Civil War proved only that the northern states had more soldiers and more war materials then the Confederacy.
14. August 2010 at 9:13 pm
Articles of Confederation Convention. We the people just have to stand up and call for this. Check out mikechurch.com, he has produced documentaries on this subject. I’m not just plugging for Mike, he speaks the truth. What we have is a BIG BROTHER GOVMENT that will not stop until their cause is complete. SECESSION is not a bad word. If we can’t agree on the usurpations of the powers that be then when are we going to agree on ANYTHING! Our forefathers knowingly wrote this document as it is. No matter how many States or population of our country. A CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC, use your brains and read, God it took me long enough and now enough is enough. All the LIES no transparency. Look I’ll say it again SECESSION doesn’t even leave a BAD taste. God bless and God bless the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!
14. August 2010 at 10:38 pm
The only real test of the constitutionality of secession is whether or not the secession is successful. Vieira is right about the Power of the Purse and the Power of the Sword. No state is prepared for such a contingency.
16. August 2010 at 1:12 pm
“When ‘We The People’ was written by Thomas Jefferson . . .”
When was this? This phrase appears in the Preamble to the Constitution, which Jefferson had nothing to do with creating. The phrase was a rewrite of the Aug. 6, 1787 draft, by the Committee of Style. Governeur Morris is often credited with the phrase, due to his standing in that Committee.
A legal basis for secession can be discerned in George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights: “And that whenever any Government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to these Purposes, a Majority of the Community had an indubitable, inalianable and indefeasible Right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such Manner as shall be judged most conducive to the Public Weal” (Draft version.)
This can only refer to majorities within States. (Numerical majorities of individuals are irrelevant in the Federal sphere.) Most States adopted this language–New Hampshire’s Constitution even explicitly refers to it as “Right of Revolution.”
This is listed among the rights “of which they can not by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity…” In other words, the inherent, anterior right of secession not only cannot be taken away, it cannot be GIVEN away.
16. August 2010 at 4:13 pm
I have heard the arguments about the Jewish lobby and secret Jewish control etc.
However I find that as soon as you start lumping anyone by race into a group no matter how good or evil that group may be you are racist!
We are not going to be judged by GOD by the actions of our fathers, or others of our race. Read the bible God put an end the the Generational curse in the OLD Testament and Jesus nor the apostles NEVER re-instituted it but the opposite! every one will be by GOD judged by his own actions, Surely you don’t believe your wiser than GOD so follow His example!
Get over the race B.S.
On Secession, The fed is seceding from lawful constitutional authority and thus becomes as illegitimate as any elected official, or officer of the law the moment He violates HIS oath to protect and defend it! The Law of the land (Constitution and Bill of rights)!
It is the duty of State governments to hold the Fed accountable to the LAW PERIOD! If a good portion of the states have a desire to form a NEW Government based on a different LAW then we have no GOD GIVEN AUTHORITY to stop them! ALL AUTHORITY TO GOVERN COMES FROM GOD. GOD ORDAINED A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AS THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FOR US NOT ANY PARTICULAR ELECTED OFFICIALS! As soon as you usurp authority not given to you by GOD or the form of government He instituted you lose HIS endorsement and become illegitimate! The states that are determined to live by the law of the land need to force the Federal government by any means necessary to conform to it! Those states who want to fundamentally change it should be allowed to do so and form their own Union! We can do this peacefully as an amicable divorce or it will happen naturally and result in a blood bath but there is no stopping it with the irreconcilable differences that have formed by our different Visions of America!
24. August 2010 at 10:48 pm
Which is greater: truth or falsity, fact or supposition, opinion or knowledge? Where do we find the guiding rule for this nation except in the Law of God and of the Constitution? If the Constitution fails, or is torn apart, then all our great forefathers sacrificed for is lost. No system of government is perfect, and that is because no fallen man is perfect.
Our forefathers were neither politically illiterate, nor unaware of the grave responsibilities and burdens accompanied by a republican form of government. They also observed that union with another nation (independent or otherwise) is not to be broken over matters that can be solved through the continued union of states. Why else would so many appeals have been made to the King and to God in honor of their righteous cause? Why else would rebellion have been the final solution undertaken with any hope of success? Why else would they take pains to mold such a great nation as this after the war? The Founders possessed great foresight (or presently we would not be decrying government injustice on the basis of our constitutional rights). They, as well as their fellow citizens, appreciated their newly won freedom as a benefit for their descendants. They entrusted to their sons and daughters a grave mission: maintain and expand a land where freedom is preserved at any cost, uphold the wisdom of our Fathers in Faith and Western tradition, and respect God and His Law above all else. As Benjamin Franklin said, “A republic if you can keep it.”
America is, truly, the union of these independent, sovereign states. Consequently, no matter how independent, how sovereign these states are, there is no America if there is no union of the states. So how can the Union be sacrificed in the name of the salvation of the Union? It is utter nonsense. Therein lies the contradiction and danger that Edwin Vieira points out: how can there be any outcome but the dissolution of America, unless the Union itself is preserved? Recall that all thirteen states rebelled together. Had they not, America would have failed to rise. All thirteen sweated, labored and suffered together through the summer of 1787 to give this new nation life. And it was an unwillingness to work under the constraints of the Constitution so arduously prepared barely 80 years prior, that nearly destroyed the nation and split is asunder. And yet, hardly 150 years after that proven debacle, secession is supposed to be an option.
As Edwin Vieira asks so pointedly in his article: “what lone State or little group of States could put up such resistance?” “Such resistance as necessary to overcome, not only the might of the federal government and its cronies, but also foreign invaders coming in the name of global unity. The Southern States could not defeat the North, and the South (more or less) had full support of its general populace, brilliant generals, and hardy troops who believed in their cause. How much more can a state (or small group of them) expect to accomplish when a majority of citizens are either hostile or (worse still) indifferent to patriotic action of any kind, and totally unprepared for economic, moral and military crises? Any groups involved in such an attempt can expect historically similar results: defeat, subordination and considerable “federal reconstruction.” To expect otherwise is beyond imprudence.
We should seek to uphold the work of men greater than ourselves, not undermine it and trample it underfoot as a failed system of bygone days. For truly, which has failed America: the system or its citizens? And who has done more for its prosperity: the Founders or the posterity standing ungratefully upon their shoulders? We owe it to them and to the many generations before us that daily thanked the Almighty for His blessing of freedom to preserve this great Union and see that it does the work of the merciful God who allowed it to achieve such greatness.
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
God bless America!
Signed,
Dominic Vieira
I hope my arguments bear the burden of my logic to the readers, for I do not write this to exhibit the natural bias held for my beloved father and his hard fought position, but to do my part to express the truth.
6. September 2010 at 8:15 am
Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. has simply tapped on a nation of shrugged shoulders to remind them to simply try the constitutional remedy first. I don’t sense he is offering any resistance to new ideas beyond that.