Serfdom, Revolution, Or Southern Independence

As the boot of centralized fascist-socialist tyranny pushes harder on our necks, we have three choices: 1) serfdom; 2) revolution; or 3) Southern independence. I would hope those reading this would have already omitted option number one from consideration.

However, serfdom will likely be the choice of the majority of Americans (and maybe even of Southerners). Why? It is the easiest path. It requires one to do nothing out of the ordinary, to take no risks nor face any danger. Because most people like their bread and circuses and don’t want to be taken out of their comfortable day-to-day existence, they will chose serfdom and convince themselves it is the reasonable and even the patriotic thing to do. Others who might know better will choose this path because of fear.

The revolution option is infinitely better than serfdom, but it has its downside, too. Most revolutions, historically speaking, are bloody affairs that often, as it is said, “devour their own children.” Before you remind me of the successful American Revolution, please remember that that event was a secession movement against the British Empire and not a turning of the world upside down as was the French Revolution. Modern revolutions normally degenerate very quickly into chaos. Before you advocate letting the revolution genie out of her bottle, know this: the Feds may be inept at most things, but they have proven themselves expert at killing people and destroying things. Yes, it may have to come down to an armed stand off; however, there is a better way than out-and-out revolution that leads to this point.

I prefer option three: Southern independence. Our States are historically the loci of ultimate temporal sovereignty within our federated, constitutional republic. The Founders intended it to be that way. Any of the Southern States (or any of the fifty) can assert that sovereignty anytime it wishes by withdrawing from the voluntary union of the States united. By withdrawing (or seceding) through the action of its legislature or another body elected for that specific purpose, the State is on solid legal and moral ground. Our lesser magistrates would be doing exactly what they should to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the State’s citizens against the encroachment of tyranny.

A proper prelude to secession might be Nullification and Interposition. If the federal Congress, the President, or the federal courts (or any combination of the three) should commit unconstitutional acts against the States and the citizens thereof, a State could simply declare that action, be it a law, an executive order, or a legal ruling, to be of no effect within the State’s borders. Should the feds press the issue (which they likely would), then the State government (again, the lesser magistrate) would have the duty to interpose itself between its citizens and the federal forces arrayed against them. This might take the form of the mobilization of a true State Militia (not the National Guard, which can be “federalized”). This is why you should take the right to keep and bear arms seriously.

The use of Nullification and Interposition (and a subsequent secession) might, it is true, lead to armed conflict just as revolution would. However, the former would have the force of history and law on its side whereas the latter, though justifiable, would be more desultory, disorganized, and chaotic. I think it’s always better, at least for as long as possible, to have some lawful and time-honored precedents on your side.

Under present circumstances, brought upon us by both major political parties and our own lack of vigilance, I don’t see any other options but the three I’ve briefly outlined above. Because serfdom is out for most of those who will read this, we had better think long and hard about the other two options. We will have to choose one. I pray we choose wisely.

Audemus jura nostra Defendere!

Michael Hil
President, The League of the South
Killen, Alabama
21 March 2010

Current Affairs, Michael Hill, nullification, Political Well Being, revolution, state militia

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

ON SECESSION AND SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE

12 May 2009

In light of the recent interest in secession, there are some fundamental points we need to understand in order to counter those who claim that this time-honoured remedy against tyranny is un-American and even treasonous. The voluntary union (or confederacy) of States known as the United States was born of a secessionist movement against Great Britain, and our Declaration of Independence is, at base, a secessionist document. How, then, can secession legitimately be called un-American? When our Founding Fathers broke the bonds of political association with the British Empire in 1776, the former colonies became free and independent States constituting thirteen separate communities, each asserting its sovereignty. This arrangement received confirmation in the Articles of Confederation (1778) and the Treaty of Paris (1783). Americans themselves, as well as their British foe, acknowledged that each State was a separate and sovereign entity. The sovereignty of the separate States is an important issue in understanding how the United States was formed under its Constitution of 1787-88. When delegates met in Philadelphia in May 1787, they came as representatives selected by the people (i.e. citizens) of their respective States. The people of the States did not give their delegates any authority to make binding agreements; rather, they could only discuss proposed changes to the Articles of Confederation. Any changes to the Articles would become effective only if ratified in convention by the citizens of the separate States. The result of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was, of course, the U.S. Constitution. However, the document was not binding until nine of the thirteen States ratified it for themselves. That happened in 1788, and those nine States entered into a compact (or contract) with each other and, by doing so, created the political union known as the United States (or, more accurately, the States United). Four States, for a time, remained outside of the union and thus were not bound by the compact. Eventually, though, all thirteen States ratified and united. It is important to note that no State (or States) could answer for another State. Each State acceded to the compact by its own sovereign will. Moreover, all of them understood that they might secede from the compact by those same means-by a ratifying convention of their citizens or representatives. Nowhere does the Constitution forbid a State from seceding from the union. In fact, the Tenth Amendment (contained in the Bill of Rights of 1791) expressly confirms that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The power to force a State against its will to remain in the union is absent among the powers delegated to the general (or federal) government; therefore, the right of secession is reserved to the States, or more precisely, to the people of the States. Some of the New England States threatened to secede several times before 1860 (e.g. 1803, 1807, 1814, and 1844-45). At no time did the Southern States deny them this right. However, when a number of Southern States seceded in 1860-61, Lincoln and the Republican Party went to war to prevent them from exercising their Constitutional right. Simply put, Lincoln placed the forced “unity” of the States above the Constitution itself, and this action set him in opposition to the principles of the American Founders. Northern victory in 1865 marked the end of true Constitutional government in America. In its place, the American Empire now defines the limits of its own power without serious regard to the Constitution. Formerly free and sovereign States have become little more than administrative provinces of an all-powerful central government in Washington, DC. Without a serious challenge to its authority, which the acknowledged right of secession is, our government will not reform itself. We are not free people if we are not free to leave. Our colonial ancestors acknowledged what our present government (and popular opinion) denies: that, at some time, dissolving our political bonds might be a necessary and proper course. That time came in 1860-61, and The League of the South believes it has come again. Secession, as Thomas Jefferson acknowledged, is the assertion of the inalienable right of a people to change their form of government whenever it ceases to fulfill the purposes for which they created it. Under our Constitution this should be a peaceful remedy. The decision of a State or States to withdraw peacefully from a political association is not revolutionary or rebellious. On the contrary, the government that is no longer responsive to its people, a government that denies its people their inalienable rights, is revolutionary. The right of secession is never more necessary than when it is denied. Some say that secession is impractical and/or unattainable. It certainly is both as long as the people of the States remain ignorant of it as a remedy to tyranny handed down to them by earlier generations. We, the people of the States, still have the weapon and the legitimate power of reform (sovereignty). The only thing we lack is the collective will to wield it.

Dr. Michael Hill,President

The League of the South

(800) 888-3163 www.dixienet.org

Abraham Lincoln, Articles of Confederation, Constitution, Current Affairs, Michael Hill, Political Well Being, Republican Party and Lincoln, right of people to change their government, secession, tenth amendment, thirteen States, THomas Jefferson and liberty, Treaty of Paris, U S Constitution

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

ANNOUNCING THE LEAGUE OF THE SOUTH’S 2008 NATIONAL CONFERENCE

31 OCTOBER-1 NOVEMBER AT THE CHATTANOOGA (TENNESSEE) CONVENTION CENTER

CONFERENCE THEME: “SURVIVING THE EMPIRE’S COLLAPSE”

The League of the South will hold its 2008 national conference once again in beautiful Chattanooga on the banks of the Tennessee River on Friday and Saturday, 31 October and 1 November. We will meet in the Chattanooga Convention Center.

The year’s theme—“Surviving the Empire’s Collapse”—is intended to be a practical one. As inflation soars and the dollar falls, resulting in higher and higher prices for energy, food, and many other necessities, life becomes more difficult for the average, hard-working families of the South. Indeed, because of these factors coupled with continuing wars and the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the potential meltdown of the credit markets, it is, we believe, imperative that folks learn how to provide for the basic necessities themselves or at least within their local communities. Not since the Great Depression of the 1930s has it been more important for local communities to be able to help themselves instead of depending on a fragile system of money, credit, supply, and transportation. The speeches at our 2008 conference will help you understand the crisis and prepare practically to withstand it. If we are to be there to “pick up the pieces” after the collapse and restore ordered liberty to our communities and States, then we had better start getting ready now.

Among the things you will learn: How to help develop a local agricultural economy; How to become a freeholder and wean yourself from dependence on the corporate system; How gold and silver can free you from a corrupt inflationary money system; How to implement the ideas of the Nashville Agrarians and the English Distributists in our own day; How to organize a political movement based on “localism;” Short- and long-term strategies for self-sufficient households; the Biblical foundations for self-sufficiency and localism, among others.

We urge you and your family and friends to attend this unique and important League of the South conference.

Scheduled Speakers

Michael Peroutka, Esq, 2004 Presidential Candidate for the Constitution Party

Pastor John Weaver, celebrated speaker and author

Mike Crane, founder of the Southern Party of Georgia

Franklin Sanders, LS Board member, editor of The Free Magnolia & The Moneychanger

Michael Tuggle, LS Board member and blogmaster of the Rebellion Blog on Dixienet.org

Catherine Austin Fitts, President, Solari, Inc. and Manager, Solari Investment Advisory Services, LLC

Michael Hill, League of the South President

In addition to these (and other) speakers, we will host a workshop on Saturday afternoon on “How to Prepare Your Household for the Collapse.”

The conference will begin at 9:00 am and conclude at 5:00 pm on both Friday and Saturday. To register, simply fill out the form below and mail it, along with your registration fee, to the League of the South. We hope to see you in Chattanooga.

————————————————————————————————————

2008 League of the South National Conference Registration Form

Name(s): ________________________________________________________________

Address: ________________________________________________________________

City: _____________  State: _____  Zip: _______

Phone: _____________  E-mail: _____________________________________________

____  Individual  $50.00

____ Couple  $75.00

____ Family  $100.00

Mail, with check or money order made payable to The League of the South, to: League of the South, P. O. Box 760, Killen, Alabama 35645.

agrarians, Catherine Fitts, Current Affairs, great depression, John Weaver, League of the South, Michael Hill, Michael Peroutka, Michael Tuggle, Mike Crane, Political Well Being, Surviving the Empires collapse

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A recent New York Times story addressed a program organized by the State Department. The program seeks to “reach out” to European Muslims and give them exposure to the empire. The Muslims they are reaching out to are from the areas of Paris that erupted in riots. How does the empire justify such programs? To me it seems that they are rewarding the trouble-makers by giving them a trip to the Empire. Part of what is more disturbing is that it is a “long-standing program”. In other words this has been going on a while. The taxpayers have been paying for youths from trouble-makers areas to come to the US. It is said that the program allows future leaders to have some exposure to the US. If they were “true” and genuine future leaders, they would find the money to underwrite the trip themselves. Such programs amount to buying off the handpicked leaders who the government identifies.

If this is the type of foreign programs the empire spends it time and money on, it is no wonder that people like Omar Sharif blasts the empires foreign policy and claims that Americans don’t know anything.  This is very akin to Dr. Hill assertion about the three B’s that Americans focus their time and attention on–Ball (baseball, football, etc.). beer, and bass boats.

It is because the people have been lulled into complacency that tax dollars are being spent giving troubled youths vacations in America.

Free Texas from such insanity,

J Murrah

Current Affairs, Michael Hill, omar sharif, Paris, Political Well Being, State Department

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!