Third Palmetto Republic

One of the biggest obstacles in the advocacy of self-government and independence is the attitude that secession is illegal, that it is treason, that it is totally out of the question. Most people, it seems, respond to even the suggestion of secession with such knee jerk reactions as if they have been conditioned like Pavlov’s dog.

A lot of this sentiment, perhaps all of it, can be traced back to the War Between the States, also referred to as the Civil War.

The idea that the Civil War decided the issue of secession in these not so united States is either the best of all arguments in opposition to a State’s right to withdraw from the Union, or the most ridiculous. Discussions on secession related topics in the blogosphere frequently resort to arguments akin to, “The North won; get over it,” or the well-worn retort of, “How’d that work out for you the last time?” While these comments most likely come from those with little knowledge of our history, and in particular our founding documents, the frequency of their use begs the question if the argument—might makes right—has any merit or substance.

Did the Civil War decide the issue of secession? « Secession University

Unfortunately, these arguments also come from those people who supposedly are educated and supposedly have a thorough knowledge of history, as Miller goes on to explain:

If Scalia’s remarks teach us anything, it’s that even someone as respected as the most “conservative” jurist on the Court is still a part of the problem—a federal government that has far exceeded its delegated authority. The Judicial Branch, like the Legislative and Executive, is dedicated to an all-powerful federal government at the expense of the sovereign States and the liberty of their people.

Indeed, even the most powerful “conservative” in the land treats secession as an idea that has been disproven, despite the fact that imperial force cannot solve the merits of a principle. I have personally interacted with such people at the local level in Tea Party and 9/12 groups, and their reaction to the notion is quite stunning. These people will talk at great length about nullification and its merits, but absolutely shun the notion of secession as a great immoral act. They are totally oblivious, it seems, to the fact that secession is merely the enforcement mechanism of nullification.

The war between the states was a tragedy for all Americans of all races as it took a collection of voluntarily united sovereign states and turned them all into subjects of an all powerful and oppressive empire. North or South, East or West, it doesn’t matter. Every state and all of the people of all of the states lost the “civil war” because now we live under the thumb of the federal government.

The worst part of this tragedy is that we now are at a point where the subjects of the empire are inexplicably loyal to and in a state of adoration of their oppressors. “Conservatives” and “liberals,” Republicans and Democrats duke it out from day to day on the political scene without even realizing that they are simply manipulated dogs fighting over meaningless scraps who simply have no power to change their condition. This is what I refer to as Stockholm Syndrome. In fact:

In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims… The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term “Stockholm Syndrome” was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.

…

In cases where Stockholm syndrome has occurred, the captive is in a situation where the captor has stripped nearly all forms of independence and gained control of the victim’s life, as well as basic needs for survival. Some experts say that the hostage regresses to, perhaps, a state of infancy; the captive must cry for food, remain silent, and exist in an extreme state of dependence. In contrast, the perpetrator serves as a ‘mother’ figure protecting the ‘child’ from a threatening outside world, including law enforcement’s deadly weapons. The victim then begins a struggle for survival, both relying on and identifying with the captor. Possibly, hostages’ motivation to live outweighs their impulse to hate the person who created their dilemma.

Stockholm syndrome – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The genius of the federal government, the U.S. Empire, is that they have used indirect and deceiving means for such oppression. They don’t come to your house and hold you at gunpoint to strip you of your independence or gain control of your life, because this would be too obvious, and people would resist it. Instead, they pass federal laws and mandates and regulations and taxes that are all meant to protect you from the threatening outside world, but serve to limit your freedom, steal your property, and control your actions. To add insult to injury, and to complete the circle of enslavement, they literally serve as a mother figure and control the education of your children and have done so for generations, each iteration creating more and more hostages. The same government that supposedly fought to end slavery has instead enslaved us all.

The situation is not as bleak as it may sound though, events are taking place that are bringing people back to the ideas of self government and liberty:

A stark example of this is unfolding before our eyes in Arizona, where Governor Jan Brewer is honoring her constituents’ wish to stem the invasion from Mexico. For a long time the federal government has compelled Arizona and other states not only to tolerate this invasion, but to subsidize it, a sickening policy that Arizonans overwhelmingly want to abolish. If the federal government steps in and quashes the people’s will on an issue of this emotional magnitude, it will have gone a long way toward losing the people’s respect and obedience.

The same calculus applies to gun rights in Montana and the drug war in California, both instances where the state government has chosen to pursue a course that deviates from unpopular federal policy. At a critical point, the state may gather enough spine to “interpose” its judgment and formally refuse to observe a federal law. Another term for this is “nullification,” which is a smaller version of secession (i.e., the refusal to observe all federal authority).

If a state indeed nullifies an unpopular federal law, it will have crossed the Rubicon and dared the federal government to enforce its will against that of the people. If the federal government does so, it will lose legitimacy and alienate the people even further; if it does not, it will lose face and encourage people to seek even more of the self-governance being denied them.

Making Secession Happen | Liberty Defense League

This is the nature of the intellectual battle we must wage. Our philosophical enemies who believe in imperialism and government control are strong and their government is growing faster than ever, and our freedom loving allies are weak and have been conditioned into loyalty to their masters. As inspiring as the Tea Party movement has been, uniting people of all political backgrounds against big government, no amount of rallies or demonstrations will improve the lives of Americans so long as we continue to worship the red, white, and blue. We must encourage the nullification efforts being discussed today and we must advocate for the ultimate nullification: secession. The soft tyranny of the United States government has created a country of “free” hostages but we can and will restore liberty if we can somehow break the Stockholm Syndrome of our countrymen.