14 votes

How serious is the secessionist faction within the Liberty Movement?

With all the talk of a civil war within the GOP, I got to thinking about the utter disdain for the State that so many of us here share. Are there ones who now feel so alienated that the thought of breaking away sounds better all the time, or is there some great measure of hope for the future of the United States that will continue to drive participation in this government?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Maybe the answer is..

A Union of 50 Republics.

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"- Homer Simpson

Not many. People may talk the

Not many.

People may talk the talk, but walking the walk could very well be deadly.

Secession is for amateurs like Rick Perry...

The real deal is NULLIFICATION We don't need to secede! No way! This is our country! Tell the globalist to secede!

Time to read up on how to win back America.
Nullification by Tom Woods.

I like both ideas but first

I like both ideas but first we must use nullification. Before we consider the alternative.

Recommended reading on Secession

Rethinking the American Union by Donald Livingston


My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

I'm all for it

But not just States seceeding from the Union. I wan't to see mini-republics come out of the woodwork in the shape of cities or counties seceeding from their States.

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

Mini secession

I've given that some thought as well. When I think of ginormous metroplexes like DFW or city-states like NYC, the the idea of communities cutting ties with their overlords sounds appealing. Withhold all revenue, refuse their services, resist their threats of coercion, restore private property rights, liberate the marketplace, localize the economy through individual actions, and work together when need be.

"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."

Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell

"No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best."


My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

If you want to find out...

If you want to find out, move to New Hampshire..'The Free State'!


"Yes we can!" Yes we can create a 'Free State'! Starting with Free Counties!

why do that

This is our country. I'm not giving it up.

Can't seriously contemplate it

It would destroy this country a hundred times over. Make no mistake before you start waving that rebel flag.

It's mostly an academic exercise at best around here.

We don't shy from any topic hardly.

This one has lots of lessons in it, so while we may not be serious about it, we can use it for illustrative purposes.

For example, if secession were to "work" or be feasible from the perspective of the State that wants to leave - first, they'd need to have their fiscal house in order. They'd also need a sound monetary system. And if they wanted to remain independent, they'd have to revitalize their militia.

Now, these are all good things for other reasons, even if a State remains in the USA, but certainly, if a State were to accomplish these things, they'd be more able to handle the future on their own.

No State is even close to that today that I am aware of. There have been rumblings in a few areas, but no concrete effort.

I'd be willing to assert categorically, that every State participates in federal welfare programs, and has their own socialist infrastructure with government indoctrination centers and medical clinics. States regulate WAY too much of every day life.

If we want to fix Congress, we first need to fix our States, and then, there will be no need to secede.

dammit sam...

great comment. totally logical.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Thanks BugMan!

I can be when I try.

Tales of secessionists....

It seems this one extremely remote stretch of river was becoming a hideout for refugees from the Civil War, and when a new person would arrive the locals would demand to know "Are ye Secesh?" (Secessionist.) It is now known as the Secesh River (and hot spring!)

There is an electrician in town who cannot trace his family tree back further than a grandfather who got sick of the war, shot a man and stole his horse, looked at the name on a mailbox as he rode for Idaho and took that as his name.

As for me, it seems like a lot of fuss and I prefer to just ignore them until they go away.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Catch 22

Secede, as far as I know and I could be wrong, is not permitted per the Constitution. States could utilize States rights (state Constitutions could be amended), but then to secede would also require abandoning the Constitution of the United States, which is what establishment is already trying to do.

If states were to secede, what would prevent the Establishment of the United States from invading and taking over the seceded states, as they do other nations?

They do not call it New World Order for nothing.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

The Constitution doesn't even contemplate secession

because the Constitution did not create the United States. It merely constituted a government for it.

The document which created the United States of America, and where you will find the articles dealing with membership in it is the Articles of Confederation.

And no, they were never repealed or abrogated.

If they were, you'd find an article in the Constitution creating and naming the union - but you don't, because there was no need, the union already existed and it's framework is governed by the AoC.

Even as late as Lincoln this was understood and acknowledged. Only modern Americans are clueless about it because we aren't taught it.

Lincoln did not point to any part of the Constitution to argue against secession - he pointed to a (mis-interpreted) phrase in the Articles of Confederation.

What Phrase?


"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Article 13:

...and the union shall be perpetual;...

This was misinterpreted by Lincoln to mean the union could never be ended. But that is absurd on its face. The Articles of Confederation are in the nature of a Treaty. By definition, they were agreed to and could be un-agreed to.

Other than general principle of Law, there is this:

Article 3 - The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other...

You can't have a league of "friendship" by any stretch of the term, at the point of a gun.

The union cannot be forced.

It is not a situation of once entered into, you can't leave.

The phrase referring to the "union shall be perpetual" is standard contract/Treaty language that specifies an ending time for the agreement.

"Perpetual" does not mean it cannot be ended.

It means it will continue until specifically terminated.

Otherwise, the AoC would have to specify a term length, or an exact end date with provisions for renewal.

This phrase means the AoC does not have to be explicitly renewed - it will continue in effect until it is overtly ended.

And the southern States in fact, specifically and overtly, ended their participation. They not only declared their independence (which Article 2 says they retained anyway) but they recalled their Representatives and Senators. They ceased participating in the Constitution's government.

Lincoln was smart enough to understand this. The fact that he used this phrase to support his claim means he knew by that time, he could fool enough people who were by then ignorant enough not to know better, or maybe never knew better, that he could enforce union with muskets, bayonets and cannons.

This is also proof of Lincoln's evil. He knew better, and still did wrong.

To the point of applicability of the AoC vs. the Constitution - there are no such provisions in the Constitution. This was not an oversight. These were learned men, some of them the SAME men, who deliberated over both documents. They knew full well they were not abrogating the AoC and not amending them. They were ratifying a completely independent document that would operate under the framework that the AoC set up. The purpose of this document was to constitute a formal government. (which the AoC did not do) It did not "recreate" the union.

Read Articles 1,2 & 3 of the AoC and see if you can find anything similar in the Constitution —you will not.


samadamscw and jksamphere, thanks for setting me straight. As always, I have much to learn :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

If a nation as totalitarian as the

former Soviet Union can have peaceful secession, then maybe it can happen here too. We just need the right catalyst. Ron Paul's election campaigns brought so many new people into the liberty movement, that the Free State Project may soon have its magic number (20,000) of participants, and the mass migration will begin. New Hampshire has been transformed with less than 2,000 Free Staters living there. Just think what 20,000 could do.

That was more of a dissolution than secession.

The USSR was held together by the party bosses. When that failed, they simply re-created it under the Russian Federation.

Nothing much changed at all really.

The nations that didn't join the Federation were liabilities anyway. As it was, Warsaw nations were a liability and a drain on the Soviet Treasury. Odds are, they would have all been cut loose eventually.

The only way that could happen here, without a collapse or coup, would be for a State that really isn't integral to the economy to want to leave. And then you'd still have to contend with the rest of the States not wanting to let them go, if simply out of pride. For now, I think Texas is perhaps the only one that could unilaterally secede and make it stick.

I have no hope...

...that the US will be a nice place to live at any time during my remaining days on this earth...I dont even think it will be a nice place for my 3 year old daughter when she becomes an adult. I actually dont think there is even a small corner of the globe where one can escape the reach of the US govt...maybe out in the woods of Alaska.

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy

I was driving today. . .

. . . and thinking much the same thing. So much of the color and wonder of this nation seems to have bled away. The sense of limitless possibility so integral to this nation seems repressed.

And yet, I want to believe that this rise in consciousness that we've seen over the past few years means something too. The Liberty Movement, Occupy, Anonymous, and people generally waking up is something to rally around.

Its daunting though to have only that candle of light to hold on such a dark windy landscape. I think we better use the next four years to get closer to each other and combine the light.

“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” —Thomas Jefferson

Did you happen to watch the Vermont Senate debate?

I know what you're thinking, "Why would I?" Anyway, there was a candidate named Peter Diamondstone calling openly calling for Vermont to secede. Ironically, he represented the Liberty Union Party.

"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."

Doug Casey likes Argentina

Jeff Berwick and Jesse Ventura like Mexico. Sadly, anywhere but here you will likely find more personal and economic freedom. (excepting the eurozone of course)

The biggest problems that individual states here in Amerika will have if they try to break away is their debt. The Federal Government keeps handing out so much Federal "Stimulus" money and bribes all the State and local officals in every State with "national emergency" and "terrorism" funds that they are going to find it VERY difficult under statutory law to break from DC.

I think as we go more socialistic and anti-religion

secession movements could pop up and there will be violence and stuff. But such groups will be too fractionlized to amount to any real threat to the union. I have been researching other countries - looking for a place to go. Thinking of Costa Rica but I believe it relies on the dollar as well. Any ideas. I vaguely remember an article about the increase of people in retirement age, and the wealthy, giving up U.S. citizenship to avoid taxes. Also, something about people retiring to Panama - anyway any help, thoughts, suggestions would be appreciated.

Soverign Man

This website has some interesting information and perspectives on 'multi-flagging' and creating a safe-haven for yourself beyond US borders.


“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” —Thomas Jefferson

Exactly which countries

became more violent as they moved away from religion? Unless I am misreading your post, I think the MORE religious a people, the less tolerant of others, the more likely to be warlike...not the other way around. Non-believers I know tend to be much more accepting of others with differences.

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy