CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. — In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions — New England and the South — are sitting down to talk. Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully. ANNUAL EVENT:Reactions to last year's convention That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence. "We believe that an independent South, or Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont would be better able to serve the interest of everybody, regardless of race or ethnicity," said Michael Hill of Killen, Ala., president of the League of the South. FIND MORE STORIES IN: League | Hawaii | Alaska | Vermont | Institute | South | South | Southern | Middlebury | Michael Hill Separated by hundreds of miles and divergent political philosophies, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South are hosting a two-day Secessionist Convention starting Wednesday in Chattanooga. They expect to attract supporters from California, Alaska and Hawaii, inviting anyone who wants to dissolve the Union so states can save themselves from an overbearing federal government. If allowed to go their own way, New Englanders "probably would allow abortion and have gun control," Hill said, while Southerners "would probably crack down on illegal immigration harder than it is being now." The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly prohibit secession, but few people think it is politically viable. Vermont, one of the nation's most liberal states, has become a hotbed for liberal secessionists, a fringe movement that gained new traction because of the Iraq war, rising oil prices and the formation of several pro-secession groups. Thomas Naylor, the founder of one of those groups, the Second Vermont Republic, said the friendly relationship with the League of the South doesn't mean everyone shares all the same beliefs. But Naylor, a retired Duke University professor, said the League of the South shares his group's opposition to the federal government and the need to pursue secession. "It doesn't matter if our next president is Condoleeza (Rice) or Hillary (Clinton), it is going to be grim," said Naylor, adding that there are secessionist movements in more than 25 states, including Hawaii, Alaska, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Texas. The Middlebury Institute, based in Cold Spring, N.Y., was started in 2005. Its followers, disillusioned by the Iraq war and federal imperialism, share the idea of states becoming independent republics. They contend their movement is growing. The first North American Separatist Convention was held last fall in Vermont, which, unlike most Southern states, supports civil unions. Voters there elected a socialist to the U.S. Senate. Middlebury director Kirpatrick Sale said Hill offered to sponsor the second secessionist convention, but the co-sponsor arrangement was intended to show that "the folks up north regard you as legitimate colleagues." "It bothers me that people have wrongly declared them to be racists," Sale said. The League of the South says it is not racist, but proudly displays a Confederate Battle Flag on its banner. Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, which monitors hate groups, said the League of the South "has been on our list close to a decade." "What is remarkable and really astounding about this situation is we see people and institutions who are supposedly on the progressive left rubbing shoulders with bona fide white supremacists," Potok said. Sale said the League of the South "has not done or said anything racist in its 14 years of existence," and that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not credible. "They call everybody racists," Sale said. "There are, no doubt, racists in the League of the South, and there are, no doubt, racists everywhere." Harry Watson, director of the Center For the Study of the American South and a history professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said it was a surprise to see The Middlebury Institute conferring with the League of the South, "an organization that's associated with a cause that many of us associate with the preservation of slavery." He said the unlikely partnering "represents the far left and far right of American politics coming together."
Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.
That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence.
"We believe that an independent South, or Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont would be better able to serve the interest of everybody, regardless of race or ethnicity," said Michael Hill of Killen, Ala., president of the League of the South.
Separated by hundreds of miles and divergent political philosophies, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South are hosting a two-day Secessionist Convention starting Wednesday in Chattanooga.
They expect to attract supporters from California, Alaska and Hawaii, inviting anyone who wants to dissolve the Union so states can save themselves from an overbearing federal government.
If allowed to go their own way, New Englanders "probably would allow abortion and have gun control," Hill said, while Southerners "would probably crack down on illegal immigration harder than it is being now."
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly prohibit secession, but few people think it is politically viable.
Vermont, one of the nation's most liberal states, has become a hotbed for liberal secessionists, a fringe movement that gained new traction because of the Iraq war, rising oil prices and the formation of several pro-secession groups.
Thomas Naylor, the founder of one of those groups, the Second Vermont Republic, said the friendly relationship with the League of the South doesn't mean everyone shares all the same beliefs.
But Naylor, a retired Duke University professor, said the League of the South shares his group's opposition to the federal government and the need to pursue secession.
"It doesn't matter if our next president is Condoleeza (Rice) or Hillary (Clinton), it is going to be grim," said Naylor, adding that there are secessionist movements in more than 25 states, including Hawaii, Alaska, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Texas.
The Middlebury Institute, based in Cold Spring, N.Y., was started in 2005. Its followers, disillusioned by the Iraq war and federal imperialism, share the idea of states becoming independent republics. They contend their movement is growing.
The first North American Separatist Convention was held last fall in Vermont, which, unlike most Southern states, supports civil unions. Voters there elected a socialist to the U.S. Senate.
Middlebury director Kirpatrick Sale said Hill offered to sponsor the second secessionist convention, but the co-sponsor arrangement was intended to show that "the folks up north regard you as legitimate colleagues."
"It bothers me that people have wrongly declared them to be racists," Sale said.
The League of the South says it is not racist, but proudly displays a Confederate Battle Flag on its banner.
Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, which monitors hate groups, said the League of the South "has been on our list close to a decade."
"What is remarkable and really astounding about this situation is we see people and institutions who are supposedly on the progressive left rubbing shoulders with bona fide white supremacists," Potok said.
Sale said the League of the South "has not done or said anything racist in its 14 years of existence," and that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not credible.
"They call everybody racists," Sale said. "There are, no doubt, racists in the League of the South, and there are, no doubt, racists everywhere."
Harry Watson, director of the Center For the Study of the American South and a history professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said it was a surprise to see The Middlebury Institute conferring with the League of the South, "an organization that's associated with a cause that many of us associate with the preservation of slavery."
He said the unlikely partnering "represents the far left and far right of American politics coming together."
Seems some socialists don't like the US of Freedom. I guess the pretext for hindering the secession this time would be that they're trying to institute Communism.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-03-secessionist-movement_N.htm
SPLC has made similar slanders against the Mises Institute as well and they have a section on their website where LvMI is described as a hate group.
The League of the South actually picketed them once.
DBratton: SPLC has made similar slanders against the Mises Institute as well and they have a section on their website where LvMI is described as a hate group.
I've seen it on the SPLC - Sorry, but are they insane?
Ludwig von Mises InstituteAuburn, Ala. Headed up by Llewelyn Rockwell Jr., the Ludwig von Mises Institute is devoted to a radical libertarian view of government and economics inspired by the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, whom the institute says "showed that government intervention is always destructive." Indeed, the institute aims to "undermine statism in all its forms," and its recent interest in neo-Confederate themes reflects that. Rockwell recently argued that the Civil War "transformed the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order." Desegregation in the civil rights era, he says, resulted in the "involuntary servitude" of (presumably white) business owners. In the past, Rockwell has praised the electoral success of European neofascists like Joerg Haider in Austria and Christoph Blocher in Switzerland. Both Rockwell and institute research director Jeffrey Tucker are listed on the racist League of the South's Web page as founding members — and both men deny their membership. Tucker has written for League publications, and many League members have taught at the institute's seminars and given presentations at its conferences. At the recent Austrian Scholars Conference, the F.A. Hayek Memorial Lecture was delivered by Donald Livingston, director of the League's Summer Institute. In 1994, Thomas Fleming, a founding League member and the editor of Chronicles magazine, spoke on neo-Confederate ideas to an institute conference. Rockwell, who is also vice president of the Center for Libertarian Studies, runs his own daily news Web site that often features articles by League members. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=461
Headed up by Llewelyn Rockwell Jr., the Ludwig von Mises Institute is devoted to a radical libertarian view of government and economics inspired by the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, whom the institute says "showed that government intervention is always destructive."
Indeed, the institute aims to "undermine statism in all its forms," and its recent interest in neo-Confederate themes reflects that.
Rockwell recently argued that the Civil War "transformed the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order."
Desegregation in the civil rights era, he says, resulted in the "involuntary servitude" of (presumably white) business owners. In the past, Rockwell has praised the electoral success of European neofascists like Joerg Haider in Austria and Christoph Blocher in Switzerland.
Both Rockwell and institute research director Jeffrey Tucker are listed on the racist League of the South's Web page as founding members — and both men deny their membership. Tucker has written for League publications, and many League members have taught at the institute's seminars and given presentations at its conferences.
At the recent Austrian Scholars Conference, the F.A. Hayek Memorial Lecture was delivered by Donald Livingston, director of the League's Summer Institute. In 1994, Thomas Fleming, a founding League member and the editor of Chronicles magazine, spoke on neo-Confederate ideas to an institute conference.
Rockwell, who is also vice president of the Center for Libertarian Studies, runs his own daily news Web site that often features articles by League members.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=461
Organizations like tle Southern Poverty Law Center are a demonstration that one can even be totalitarian without having the state involved, just Civil society groups. OK, I presume they get funding from taxes in more than one way and I would not be surprized whether they use the legal system for harassing people they don't like.
I love these secessionist movements. They're a great statement.
I wonder if one will ever get legs, and if it did, how the Federal Gov't would react. Would they treat the secessionists as traitors and turn on the propaganda engine to villify them? Would they attack them and murder them as Lincoln did?
If a secessionist state emerged with a proper approach to liberty, I'd be quite likely to move there. And if the Fed's attacked, I think I would fight.
The aspiration toward freedom is the most essentially human of all human manifestations. -Eric Hoffer
I have a theory as to how an Anarchistic secession could be possible within the next few years, but it would require the monetary investments of a few businesses into a risky industry-but hell, anything that opposes the U.S. government is a risky industry. The basic idea is that three-five companies co-operating in unison form basic infrastructure necessary to privatize government. One company (for the sake of argument we'll call it A) would purchase farm land and develope it into a very basic city. Another company B, would build up employees, and equipment for a well armed private protection agency. A third company C, would set up a banking system and begin developing a gold-backed currency. As for the two companies of questionable necessity, the first, D, would be a company that would provide private jurisdiction on property rights, and the last company, E, would be a currently existing chain, able to request relocations of it's employees (a large retail company like Walmart or Target would work best). Once this is set up, A declares a secession, sending a notifying letter to officials on all levels and all news sources. It's very important that it's emphasized in the letter that the government is clearly a violent and coercive organization if it doesn't allow this peaceful secession. That way if the secession fails, and the government recaptures the land, they now have to try to defend to the country why they aren't basically evil. Anyways, A at this point sells off all it's land, including roads and all the stuff we all know would be sold off in an Anarchistic society. E could play a very crucial role here, in setting up a really important supply of goods in the new Stateless sector while also building up a seceeded population. B's roll is also very important, as B would offer defense to property owners in the area from the crime and the US government (which is also known as crime). It should be pretty evident what C and D would do. The only real issue is getting a few good entrepeneurs and investors together to put this into motion.
Good plan!
Talking about seccesionism, what is the legal/tax/political status of the Amish in PA?
Brett_McS:Good plan! Talking about seccesionism, what is the legal/tax/political status of the Amish in PA?
From Dear Yahoo:
The Amish live within self-sufficient communities and do not collect Social Security, unemployment, or welfare benefits. According to their religious beliefs, paying Social Security, an insurance premium for the elderly, is tantamount to not "taking care of their own." Amish people who are self-employed are not obliged to pay Social Security tax, but they do still pay all other taxes, including property, income, and sales tax. If an Amish person decides to work outside of the community, he or she must also pay Social Security tax like any other American.
In 1955, the IRS extended the Social Security Act of 1935 to include farm operators. At the time, some Amish people immediately complied with the tax, while others conscientiously objected to it. Many felt that it violated the separation of church and state, some did not want to accept monies for government programs, and still others believed that paying a commercial insurance for the elderly went against their trust in God to take care of them.
The IRS and the Amish played a convoluted shell game for close to a decade, until it all came to a head with the seizure of a struggling farmer's horses in 1961. The Amish elders stuck firmly by their principles, and the ensuing media and community outrage over the incident led the IRS to relent four years later. Tucked away in the 1965 Medicare Bill was a clause exempting the "Old Order Amish" and other religious groups that conscientiously objected to paying insurance premiums from Social Security tax. To be exempt, the group or sect must have been established prior to 1950 and maintain reasonable provisions for their elderly.
Thanks. If Mr Serious says so, it must be correct.
Taxation reminds me of the Steven Wright joke: "I went to the store to buy some batteries. But they weren't included. So I had to buy them again." We pay taxes to get good education for our kids. But we don't get it. So we have to pay for private school. Etc, etc. In accordance with the inexorable laws of bureaucracy - illuminated by LVM himself - we will end up paying tax and getting absolutely nothing in return, while having to pay again for those services we actually do want.
At that point a seccesionist plan may have a realistic chance of succeeding.
Brett_McS: At that point a seccesionist plan may have a realistic chance of succeeding.
I still remember when before 1994 there were talks about secession in South Africa as well. For most of the time it were Boere/Afrikaners thinking in that line. Several books were written, functionally correct for most of the part. But they didn't really sell this to the client (Afrikaner people). Ironically most people resented being ruled by the ANC or for that matter any other Black government. Many would have been ready to settle for a smaller territory. But they were kind of afraid of this. One of the arguments they replied with was:"But the world is going to boycott" us. Another reply was that their property happened to be outside the seceding area. Then their was of course the "economic" argument of that they can't do without "cheap" Black Labour (It isn;t that cheap if one considers ALL the cost it causes). Nothing could really convince these people then. As for the labour issue, how do they think do Denmark, New-zealand and countries of similar size work? Secessions would let reasons for boycott fall away and I do not think such a boycott would have been really that feasible to uphold it over years (it can be dodged pretty easily). Funny enough there are arguments that the "Anti-Apartheid" boycott did even benefit the South African economy. Finally today all the property of Whites is at the ANC's disgression. So all the arguments against secession were actually flawed. Some of the Blacks (those that managed their Homelands well) were actually also considering (full) secession. But they were overpowered with force and many of the crowd were tempted by the freebies the ANC and the Communists were promissing to them.
This all makes an interesting study. Close to a million middle class people (mostly White) left South Africa since 1994 - they seceded with their feed and luggage. Life is far easier for criminals then it is for law abiding citizens. the gap between rich and poor is increasing and I wonder to what extend does this have something to do with the institutional set up we are having now.