A pragmatic path to independence

NH Exit
#61

In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson in 1815, Adams wrote:

“As to the history of the Revolution, my Ideas may be peculiar,
perhaps Singular. What do We mean by the Revolution? The War?
That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an Effect and
Consequence of it. The Revolution was in the Minds of the People,
and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen
Years before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington. The Records
of thirteen Legislatures, the Pamphlets, Newspapers in all the Colonies
ought be consulted, during that Period, to ascertain the Steps by which
the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the
Authority of Parliament over the Colonies. The Congress of 1774,
resembled in Some respects, tho’ I hope not in many, the Counsell
of Nice in Ecclesiastical History. It assembled the Priests from the
East and the West the North and the South, who compared Notes,
engaged in discussions and debates and formed Results, by one Vote
and by two Votes, which went out to the World as unanimous.”

John Jay wrote in Federalist Paper no. 2:
“It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent
America was not composed of detached and distant territories,
but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was
the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in
a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and
productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for
the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession
of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders,
as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world,
running at convenient distances, present them with highways for
the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual
transportation and exchange of their various commodities.”

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence
has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united
people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the
same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same
principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs,
and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by
side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established
general liberty and independence. This country and this people
seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was
the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient
for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties,
should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien
sovereignties.”
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed02.asp

John Quincy Adams, in 1839, addressed the issue of what happens, or should happen, if a people are no longer united in their hearts, culture, religion, etc., but rather by law:

“Thus stands the RIGHT. But the indissoluble link of union
between the people of the several states of this confederated
nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day
should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections
of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other;
when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference,
or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of
political association will not long hold together parties no longer
attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly
sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited
states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held
together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to
the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption
of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by
dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the
separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation
to the center.”

John Jay and John Adams deliberated on what makes us a united nation; John Quincy Adams opined as to what should happen if those things were no longer present in the people united.

John Jay and John Adams wrote of the things that were, essentially, pre-conditions for the establishment of a nation, and John Quincy Adams opined as to what should happen if those pre-conditions were no longer extant.

In other words, if the pre-conditions for union were later diminished or lost completely, disunion is the preferred action. As noted in a previous post, John Quincy Adams spoke of “secession”, and the desirability of secession under the proper conditions.

#62

Well, it looks like this scenario is about to come true. This was posted at “NH Independence Drive media coverage”.

I know that cross-posting is not usually recommended, but in this case that post is of immediate interest to this particular topic, re: the scenario posted immediately above.

#63

I found this interesting… the whole website… but the following quote fits so well into the current discussion.

Another important point is that the Constitution
does not vest the Supreme Court with the
authority to forbid secession. To quote James
Madison in the Virginia Resolutions,

[The Virginia] Assembly doth explicitly and
peremptorily declare, that it views the powers
of the federal government, as resulting from
the compact to which the states are parties;
as limited by the plain sense and intention of
the instrument constituting that compact; as
no farther valid than they are authorised by
the grants enumerated in that compact.[Emphasis added].

Suppose that Texas holds a referendum on
whether Texas should peacefully withdraw
from the Union, and Texans vote to leave.
This would be a sovereign act of a sovereign
State. If that happens, it is conceivable that
the Supreme Court might forbid Texas from
leaving. Do nine Supreme Court Justices
have the power to negate the will of the
Texan people? No, they do not. The States
have not vested them with this authority.

#64

I was talking about this at work today, and it occurred to me that the argument can be made that we don’t need the tenth amendment.

The US Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction. Because nothing in the US Constitution permits the federal government to exert rights over questions of secession, the Supreme Court would probably refuse to hear the case. There would be no law, case law, etc. on which to base a decision. Since there is no lower court that has jurisdiction, and there is no higher court to send it to, they can’t send it anywhere. Since they don’t have jurisdiction, there could be no “court of last recourse”.

What would the federal government do without any kind of legal finding? I don’t know.

But note that this argument does not even mention the tenth (or for that matter the ninth) amendment. We do not have to refer to any part of the US Constitution except to say that no court has jurisdiction in the case, because it is not “enumerated” in the constitution.

#65

Leif you’re invited to this weekly event if you’d like to speak about some of your thoughts above: " E-Join our NH Independence Town Hall Sundays 1p U.S. Eastern Time! No acct needed:
https://meet.jit.si/NHIndependenceTownHallMtgAudioTaped "

#66

Thank you, I’m honored, but I must decline. I work Sundays 1-10, so I will be just beginning my shift.

Thank you again for the honor, I have seen/listened to at least one of these town hall meetings, so I am aware of what you are talking about.

#67

A couple of additional notes: I have made my arguments based on the laws as I see them, both the US Constitution and 18 USC 115, but those have been buffered by others. I have tried in every case to post my sources/references.

I have done this because I was tired of accusations and charges without foundation, as we saw in a long and somewhat rambling half hour testimony before the committee hearing for CACR-32. I was appalled that no one could adequately argue against those accusations and charges.

So, I have tried to give us secessionists ammunition to counter the anti-secessionists, and to provide a firm footing for that ammunition.

It is really my fervent hope that all of you will pick up these ideas and begin spreading them yourselves. These ideas are not original with me, I just provided a particular perspective on them. Someone here asked if I had thought of sending the “detailed analysis” to all of the state legislators. My forte is really research and analysis. If you like the ideas, if you really understand and can explain these ideas to others, by all means, please do so. If you want to email all this, or any part of it, to the legislators, by all means, please do so.

I am a firm secessionist, but I cannot take credit for the ideas, only for my analysis of them.

I do, however, wonder what the politicians, lawyers, judges, etc. would think if they knew that I am one the lowest-paid associates at WalMart, and that my college background is in the areas of math, science, and computer science!

#68

This post is just a prelude to further posts. As promised, I am working on a comprehensive history of secession/nullification in the United States.

If the question of secession ever reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, it seems likely that a history of secession in the United States might be in the interest of all concerned. But it is unlikely that an entire history would be presented to the court in session. Rather, it is more likely to be filed as an amicus brief.

While researching secession in the United States, I have found that secession has been considered for the entire history of the United States, even under the Articles of Consideration.

My research will be based on “Secession and Mathew Carey”, as an outline of the topic. I will then expand the relevant information from other sources. Just to give an idea of how long secession has been considered:
“Secessionist schemes were slow to gain
popular support. While they had been the
topic of conversation in Massachusetts since
1786, they did not gain traction until 1804.
After Jefferson purchased Louisiana Federalists
in both houses of Congress agreed that a crisis
was certain. Only Senators Simeon Olcott of
New Hampshire and John Quincy Adams from
Massachusetts disagreed.”

https://www.secessionandmathewcarey.org/pickering-griswold-promote-scheme-secession/

There were perhaps a dozen or more secession efforts considered in the first 30 years after the US Constitution was ratified.

From here on out, I intend to post links only to secondary sources of information. Any links to primary sources will be only by the name of source, followed by (AHDRtS) - American Historical Documents Related to Secession, another thread in the NHExit group. This will hopefully reduce double posting of the same link.

#69

There are two topics brought up at the CACR-32 committee hearing that I have not yet addressed. They are not so much legal oriented as they are economic.

The first is whether or not social security benefits will still be paid after independence. This question was actually responded to by those in attendance, after the a certain rep made obviously false charges that in fact they would not be paid.

  1. Social security retirement benefits are paid no matter what country you live in.
  2. Foreign nationals that have worked in the U.S. for a U.S. company must have a social security card/number, and can receive benefits even if they return to their country of origin.
  3. Social security benefits are paid through payroll deductions. After independence, social security taxes might stop being paid into the system, but you should still be able to get payments based on your contributions up to that point.

You might be able to continue making payments into the social security system if the company you work for is based outside New Hampshire, in the United States, if your company will cooperate with that.

Medicare might be a bigger problem. While it is likely that Medicare will still pay, they require that you go to medical personnel/facilities in their system, and I don’t know what would happen to personnel/facilities that might be decertified from the Medicare system after independence.

I receive social security monthly payments now, and I still pay into the Medicare system, they deduct my monthly payment directly from my monthly payment. I don’t know if there are any Medicare certified personnel/facilities in any foreign country. These are things to look into.

Interestingly, if you are taken out of the Medicare program, I wonder if that monthly payment would be deducted from the monthly social security checks. If not, that should mean your monthly social security checks would increase by the amount of the Medicare deduction.

You can find links to annual social security statistics, by state, here:
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/oasdi_sc/

#70

The other topic that is brought up frequently is how much in taxes we would NOT have to pay to Washington. Federal revenues collected, by state, can be found here:

#71

The following website discusses the idea that the U.S. constitution was explicitly a document of “secession” from the union detailed in the Articles of Confederation.

#72

In the process of researching the earliest American secession from Britain, I found this short video. I’m still writing the written narrative, but I thought this video was interesting. It will take much longer to read the written narrative than to watch this video, but will also include many more details.

1 Like
#73

Why does the federal government have so much power? How might that interfere with interpreting the 10th amendment in favor of secession? The article addresses the question of “enumerated powers”.

Take a look at this article, which explains how the government got limitless power, and why the supreme court nearly always sides with the federal government.

#74

A thought —

What would happen if the state of New Hampshire changed in such a way that they would not, today, be admitted as a new state? Would the United States congress (they’re the ones that have to admit a new state) rescind their statehood?

How would they react to such a situation?

#75

So, it’s been a couple of weeks… I have been trying to get an idea of the causes of secession/independence in colonial America - what would cause the colonies to desire independence from England? It’s not as simple as it might first appear.

In fact, the origins seem to be as early as the English Civil War beginning in 1642. Relations between the colonies and England were strained, encouraging the colonies to open trade relations with the Dutch and French.

Later it was the availability of Dutch tea at a much lower price to the colonies, the availability of molasses from the French West Indies at a much lower price, the French and Indian Wars, and the desire of England to regain control of it’s colonies all contributed to an overreach of English power in the colonies.

The trade problems were largely a result of the English economic tradition of mercantilism. The Navigation Acts were an attempt to consolidate the power and authority of England over all aspects of the colonies.

The colonies had originally been granted the right to tax themselves, and to have their own elected officials, which the Intolerable Acts tried to deny them.

This is just the broadest of outlines, but several threads can be delineated.

  1. An attempt by England to control ALL aspects of the economy of the colonies, through trade restrictions and the taxes imposed on the colonists to enforce this control was anathema to the colonists.
  2. Eventually England denied the colonists the right to have their own money, requiring the colonists to pay taxes (mostly) using the English pound.
  3. England eventually removed the right of the colonists to elect their own officials, and restricted the town meetings to only one per year. Courts were staffed by officials appointed by England. Even ecclesiastical courts came under the control of England.
  4. Smuggling became rampant, as well as a practice of non-importation. But the Admiralty courts did not seat a jury, all decisions were up to a judge, who received 5% of the value of of the cargo in the ships that were apprehended the judge found the defendant guilty. This was a huge opportunity for corruption of all types, on both sides.

Now, let’s look at the later constitution.

  1. The power to control commerce was given to the federal government. Through a constitutional amendment, the federal government was given the power to lay taxes on individuals. Remember that constitutional amendments are ratified by the states, not by the people.
  2. The power to coin money was reserved to the federal government.
  3. State legislatures were required to swear allegiance to the United States, and the constitution and federal laws became the “law of the land”.
  4. The right to trial by jury was incorporated into our most cherished traditions. Later, the courts were given the right to control how juries were selected, and jury duty became just that, a duty.

All of the same things that the colonists found objectionable were later incorporated as powers of the federal and state governments, with no power to the people, regardless of the rhetoric of both the constitution and the politicians.

The colonies were from the beginning self-governing, but the “supreme law of the land” took away the right to self-government of the states.

The people just simply exchanged the English king and parliament for the US constitution and the federal government.

Similar trade restrictions and the right to self-government were also at the root of the civil war, and of today’s secession movements.

I will expand on all of things in the weeks to come. Let me say for now that the people of the United States are less free today than at the time the colonists seceded from England.

1 Like
#76

During the research into the causes of Continental rebellion and secession, it has become increasingly clear that the origins go much further back than I (and probably many others as well) know.

At least as far as England is concerned it is clear that desire for wealth and power led to a a need for economic power, which led to war, which led to a need for money to pay for the wars, which led to more and more oppressive taxation, which led to more and more rebellion, and in the long run secessions from British control greatly diminished power.

The details are important, so I am moving the discussion of the causes of rebellion and secession to a separate thread. It will not be immediate. I have found that the roots of all this in English colonies began in 1381, with the imposition of a nasty tax on the people, to collect enough money to pay for the Hundred Years War, and the failed rebellion that ensued (short but very bloody).
1381 is also the year the first Act to control trade in the colonies (not the American colonies, of course) was passed.

Of course, the idea that taxes, war, and a desire to control the world economy is currently in vogue among those in Washington is not exactly news. Nor is it news that Washington will try crush all those opposed to it.

We must learn from the past if we are to succeed n the future.

1 Like
#77

See the above reply: Another similarity between 1381 and 2022!

A deadly and contagious illness sweeps the country,
and strict quarantine measures are swiftly implemented.
The death count rises, but government reporting is
*unreliable. Social isolation takes its toll as political *
tensions escalate. Citizens break government mandates,
asserting their right to work. Neighbors turn on each
other. In response to long-standing social injustices,
riots break out, and protesters demand systemic change.

Sound familiar?
While the parallels are striking, this is not a description
of 2020. It’s a description of early modern England.
Starting with the Black Death, in 1348, and continuing
for more than 300 years, Europe was struck with
incessant waves of plague.

Scholars of early modern England have shown how
plague and protest are often correlated. The Black
Death of 1348 laid the groundwork for the Peasants’
Revolt of 1381, for example.

#78

putting this in my audio reader finally

1 Like
#79

At about 1:02, and running about 5-6 minutes, is a good explanation of
what happened at around the time of the Continental Congress to
precipitate the American Revolutionary War.
The whole movie is interesting, if repetitive in spots. Much of it most
of us here already know. But in terms of the rights of the people,
it talks about how we got into our current situation, about how the
US Constitution did nothing to improve the lot of most people at the
time, but rather just transferred the evils of the British government
to the same evils inherent in the new American government.

1 Like
#80

On occasion I have mentioned the early rebellion in counties of
Massachusetts. The Wikipedia article on “Committees of
Correspondence” provides a bare outline of how these worked,
long before the advent of computers, in all of the colonies.
The topic can be expanded by many internet sites, but this gives
a good overview.

The second reference talks in a general way about the western
counties of Massachusetts, and the removal of British officials.
This too can be greatly expanded through other sites