A Founding Father's view of the Doctrine of States' Rights

Thomas Jefferson's Letter to Gideon Granger



Monticello. Aug. 13, 1800

Dear Sir,

I received with great pleasure your favor of June 4, and am much comforted by the appearance of a change of opinion in your State; for tho' we may obtain, & I believe shall obtain, a majority in the legislature of the United States, attached to the preservation of the federal Constitution according to its obvious principles, & those on which it was known to be received; attached equally to the preservation to the States of those rights unquestionably remaining with them; friends to the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury & to economical government; opposed to standing armies, paper systems, war, & all connection, other than commerce, with any foreign nation; in short, a majority firm in all those principles which we have espoused and the federalists have opposed uniformly; still, should the whole body of New England continue in opposition to these principles of government, either knowingly or through delusion, our government will be a very uneasy one. It can never be harmonious & solid, while so respectable a portion of its citizens support principles which go directly to a change of the federal Constitution, to sink State governments, consolidate them into one, and to monarchize that.

Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, & from under the eye of their constituents , must, from circumstance of distance, be unable to administer & overlook all details necessary for the good government of the citizens, and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder & waste. And I do verily believe, that if the principle where to prevail, of a common law being in force in the U.S., (which principle possesses the general government at once of all the powers of the State governments, and reduces us to a single consolidated government,) it would become the most corrupt government on the earth.

You have seen the practises by which the public servants have been able to cover their conduct, or, where that could not be done, delusions by which they have varnished it for the eye of their constituents. What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building & office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the States powers into the hands of the general government. The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest & best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, & united as to everything respecting foreign nations.


Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, & a very unexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants. But I repeat, that this simple & economical mode of government can never be secured, if the New England States continue to support the contrary system. I rejoice, therefore, in every appearance of their returning to those principles which I had always imagined to be almost innate in them. In this State, a few persons were deluded by the X.Y.Z. duperies. You saw the effect of it in our last Congressional representatives, chosen under their influence. This experiment on their credulity is now seen into, and our next representation will be as republican as it has heretofore been.

On the whole, we hope, that by a part of the Union having held on to the principles of the Constitution, time has been given to the States to recover from the temporary frenzy into which they have been decoyed, to rally round the Constitution, & to rescue it from the destruction with which it had been threatened even at their own hand. I see copied from the American Magazine two numbers of a paper signed Don Quixote, most excellently adapted to introduce the real truth to the minds even of the most predjudiced.

Happy Secession Day

By Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Perhaps the best evidence of how American history was rewritten, Soviet style, in the post-1865 era is the fact that most Americans seem to be unaware that "Independence Day" was originally intended to be a celebration of the colonists’ secession from the British empire. Indeed, the word secession is not even a part of the vocabulary of most Americans, who more often than not confuse it with "succession." The Revolutionary War was America’s first war of secession.

America’s most prominent secessionist, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, was very clear about what he was saying: Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever that consent is withdrawn, it is the right of the people to "alter or abolish" that government and "to institute a new government." The word "secession" was not a part of the American language at that time, so Jefferson used the word "separation" instead to describe the intentions of the American colonial secessionists.

The Declaration is also a states’ rights document (not surprisingly, since Jefferson was the intellectual inspiration for the American states’ rights political tradition). This, too, is foreign to most Americans. But read the final paragraph of the Declaration which states:

That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other things which independent states may of right do (emphasis in original).

Each colony was considered to be a free and independent state, or nation, in and of itself. There was no such thing as "the United States of America" in the minds of the founders. The independent colonies were simply united for a particular cause: seceding from the British empire. Each individual state was assumed to possess all the rights that any state possesses, even to wage war and conclude peace. Indeed, when King George III finally signed a peace treaty he signed it with all the individual American states, named one by one, and not something called "The United States of America." The "United States" as a consolidated, monopolistic government is a fiction invented by Lincoln and instituted as a matter of policy at gunpoint and at the expense of some 600,000 American lives during 1861–1865.

Jefferson defended the right of secession in his first inaugural address by declaring, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." (In sharp contrast, in his first inaugural address, Lincoln promised an "invasion" with massive "bloodshed" (his words) of any state that failed to collect the newly-doubled federal tariff rate by seceding from the union).

Jefferson made numerous statements in defense of the defining principal of the American Revolution: the right of secession. In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly he wrote:

Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation [i.e., secession] at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.

In an August 12, 1803 letter to John C. Breckinridge Jefferson addressed the same issue, in light of the New England Federalists’ secession movement in response to his Louisiana Purchase. If there were a "separation" into two confederacies, he wrote, "God bless them both, & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better."

So on July 4 stoke up the grill, enjoy your barbecue, and drink a toast to Mr. Jefferson and his fellow secessionists. (And beware of any Straussian nonsense about how it was really Lincoln, the greatest enemy of states’ rights, including the right of secession, who taught us to "revere" the Declaration of Independence. Nothing could be further from the truth.)


July 4, 2006

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today.


Copyright © 2006 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Christian First

These flags fly in front of the AAA Auto Glass shop in Livingston, Tennessee. On top is the Christian Flag, below that is the United States flag and then the state flag of Tennessee.

When I saw these flags recently while driving through Tennessee, I stopped. Not only did I want to take a photo of the unusual arrangement, but I also wanted to congratulate the proprietor of the business for his bold stand. He said a few misguided people before me had stopped to complain that the U.S. flag should be on top but I was the first to thank him for putting the Christian flag in that position.

Flags sharing the same pole should have the flag with the highest authority on top and the flags of lower authority in descending order. The man who fly’s these flags is saying that he is a Christian first, an American second, and a Tennessean third.

Actually, I told him that I felt a more historic order would be Christian first, Tennessee second and United States third. Almost everyone in America saw it that way until 1861, when Abraham Lincoln trampled the Constitution and forcefully elevated the Federal government above the states in his illegal invasion and subjugation of South.

Is it legal for a state to withdraw from the Union?

By Bill Miller
http://www.secessionuniversity.com/

Chief among the top five most frequently cited arguments against the right of a State to withdraw from the Union are ill-defined assertions that, “It’s illegal for a State to secede,” or “Only Texas has the right to secede.” These, and other such vague pronouncements, all imply the same thing; that for some unspecified reason—more than likely it’s just an assumption—but nevertheless, the opponents of secession claim it’s just plain illegal. Nothing specific mind you, just that it’s illegal. Even Abraham Lincoln, without providing specifics, said during his address to the emergency secession of Congress on July 4, 1861:

The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution.

So how does one counter such ambiguous arguments, arguments without any logical reasoning that can be specifically addressed and rebutted? Perhaps the best response is provided by simply reviewing the fundamental rights and principles our States have always had to peacefully withdraw from the Union.

There are three grand principles our States can call upon—either one of which can be used to justify secession. If one of these principles does not seem to fully justify secession, then another one will do. Again, it only takes one of the three to get the job done. The first of these principles is based on the Constitution, and if the Constitution prohibits a State from seceding.

Is secession legal per the Constitution?

The Constitution is nothing more than an agreement (sometimes referred to as a Compact) between the States, but this agreement does not address the withdrawal of a State from the Compact nor does it contain any terms and conditions should a State choose to withdraw. Generally, if an agreement is without a termination clause, then it is considered an agreement at will, and therefore any party to such an agreement can leave with only a reasonable notification of intent to withdraw.

Furthermore, the Constitution specifically lists in Article I, Section 8, all delegated authority assigned to the federal government, and it’s important to note that approving the withdrawal of a State was never a power delegated to the federal government. Therefore, the federal government is absent any authority to dictate the terms of withdrawal from the Union, and as such, the States, and the States alone, decide the issue for themselves, as further guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.

Also, there is no underlying tenet of contract law requiring a party to remain committed to an agreement that has been repeatedly violated as has our Constitution. The unauthorized actions of the central government today bear little resemblance to the limited authority delegated by our Founders in 1787. Who can reasonably deny that our States are not well within their right to withdraw from such a dysfunctional and out-of-control agreement?

These three fundamental principles: the Tenth Amendment guarantees to each State, the Constitution being a “contract at will,” and the repeated and frequent violation of the terms of the Compact are enough to insure that a State has the unfettered right to decide for itself if it is to remain a party to the Compact. But if one is not fully convinced that the Constitution allows for a State to secede from the Union, then either the Declaration of Independence or a State’s sovereign authority can be asserted as the controlling elements of State secession.

Is secession legal per the Declaration of Independence?

The Declaration of Independence (aka Declaration of Secession) established the right of the people to withdraw from a government not effecting their safety and happiness as one of our Natural God-given rights as so stated:

… that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government …

This natural God-given natural right as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence enshrines our inherent right to secession. If you believe the colonies were justified in declaring their independence from an intrusive overbearing government in 1776, then you should also acknowledge that our States continue to enjoy that same right today. But if you believe that this unalienable right no longer applies, then the ultimate right of secession can be claimed with asserting a State’s sovereign authority.

Is secession legal per the sovereign authority of the States?

Abraham Lincoln explained it best when he once suggested that sovereignty was, “A political community, without a political superior.” Taken together with the fact that the States created the federal government (not the other way around), the States are therefore in control of the sovereign power—a power without any other higher authority exercising control over their decisions. In short, the States, as the political superior, control their own destiny; they are not under the control of the federal government, an entity the States created when they established the Constitution, and an entity the States can likewise dissolve.

Simply stated, since the States are the superior sovereign entity, the inferior party, the federal government, has no authority to countermand any State decision, such as secession. Even if the Declaration of Independence had not enshrined the inherent right of secession, or if the Constitution contained language prohibiting secession, the sovereign superiority of the States would control and allow the States to decide the issue of withdrawing from the Union.

So, there you have it; there is no doubt a State has a right to withdraw from the agreement they entered into when they joined the Union. That is unless you don’t believe in either the rule of law, our God-given unalienable rights, or the sovereign authority of our States and their people.

See the original article here:  http://secessionuniversity.com/2010/05/21/is-it-legal-for-a-state-to-withdraw-from-the-union/

Every State a Sovereign Nation

US States Renamed for Countries with Similar GDPs

One of the arguments I hear occasionally against secession - whether in 1861 or 2010 - is that the individual states of the U.S.A. are too small to function effectively as sovereign nations. A study of the above map shows just how absurd that argument really is.  Here each of the fifty states is compared with a country of the world that has a similar economy or annual GDP.  The GDP, or Gross Domestic Product, represents the market value of all goods and services produced within a country in a year.

In reality, the United States of America has become altogether too large and too diverse to work well as a single, centralized nation/state. Each of the fifty states needs to reclaim it's individual sovereignty - beating back the illegal usurpations of the leviathan federal government. We already have in place a Constitution which severely limits the centralized powers in Washington, D.C. What's needed are more elected representatives who will read and heed the Constitution so wisely given us by our Founding Fathers.

Follow the link below to find my source for the map: http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/131-us-states-renamed-for-countries-with-similar-gdps/

The United States is not a Nation

By Brion McClanahan

I have often required my students on the first day or two of class to use the Oxford English Dictionary and define the following words: nation and state. Most do not follow my directions and submit a modern Webster’s or online distortion of the word, and those who use the Oxford often fail to provide the etymology of either word. I can’t fault them for that, because they have probably been taught since first grade in the public "school" system to submit the first definition they find. Thus, the common results of the activity are similar to the following:

Nation – noun: a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. (from dictionary.com)

State – noun: the territory, or one of the territories, of a government. (from dictionary.com)

How profound, statist…and completely absurd! If both are true, than the United States should simply be the "United State." A state is simply a "territory…of a government"? A nation is simply a large body of people that occupy a territory? That would be news to the founding generation. Of course, a careful reading of the history of both words could correct this mess and place the Union of the States within its proper historical context.

The word "nation" found its way into the English language around the 14th century. Under the old definition, a nation was a group of people who shared a similar racial, cultural, or religious background that often included elements such as a common language. A State was a sovereign political entity, not simply a "territory…of a government." By viewing the United States through that lens it becomes clear that modern definitions of nation and state are the product of centralization and the mischaracterization of the federal government as a "national government."

Certainly no one in the founding generation would have argued that Virginia and Massachusetts possessed the same cultural heritage. Virginia, with its strong Cavalier tradition, and Massachusetts, with its Puritan or roundhead foundations, were clearly at odds during the seventeenth century and beyond. The two colonies may have been populated by white, English Christians and who shared a common language, "English," but as David Hackett Fischer beautifully explained in his Albion’s Seed, the two cultures were diametrically opposed in almost every conceivable way. From dress to food to speech, Virginia Cavaliers and Massachusetts Yankees were in many ways two separate nations, not simply separate cultures. The "shining city upon a hill" Puritans and their decedents never let Southerners forget their differences, nor did Southerners want to be lumped together with self-righteous Yankees. William Berkeley, the dominant figure in Virginia during the seventeenth century, despised Puritans and fought against them in the English Civil War. Later American sectionalism was little more than an explicit recognition of cultural differences and the existence of separate nations in North America dating to the early days of English settlement.

Adding to this American cultural cornucopia were the Celts, the Quakers, American Indian tribes, and African slaves, groups that had interesting and culturally significant contributions to the fabric of their respective regions as well. Thus, America in the colonial period was "multicultural" in a way that extended beyond race or religion. Western civilization and the English tradition dominated, but separate nations blotted the North American landscape. One of the most respected American historians on slavery, Eugene Genovese, wrote this about American culture in his Roll, Jordan, Roll: "Blacks and whites in America may be viewed as one nation or two, or as a nation within a nation, but their common history guarantees that, one way or another, they are both American." This statement accentuates the point that the phrase "American nation" is a rhetorical fabrication of the last 150 years of American history.

This was not lost on the founding generation. John Adams once wrote that, "I expressly say that Congress is not a representative body but a diplomatic body, a collection of ambassadors from thirteen sovereign States…." Each state had its own political and cultural life and each was "sovereign." Robert Yates, writing as Brutus in 1787, observed that "In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this not be the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other." If applied to the United States, Yates concluded that:

The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care of decision, but would be composed of such heterogeneous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.

Of course, there were "nationalists" in the early federal period, but even they often understood that if the United States contained several nations rather than one, it would be better to separate than to consolidate. Gouverneur Morris, one of the most important "nationalists" (and womanizers) of this era, made the following statement during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, "But, to come more to the point – either this distinction [between the Northern and Southern States] is fictitious or real; if fictitious, let it be dismissed, and let us proceed with due confidence. If it be real, instead of attempting to blend incompatible things, let us at once take a friendly leave of each other. There can be no end of demands for security, if every particular interest is to be entitled to it." And George Washington, often showcased as a fine example of the early "nationalists" and the glue that held the States together, said this about the people of Massachusetts in the early days of the War for Independence, "There is no nation under the sun that pays more adoration to money than they do."

States’ rights and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution were intended to protect this cultural distinctiveness, and secession was often seen as the only hedge against aggression from other States or sections. This is why the three most powerful States in 1788, Virginia in the South, New York in the mid-Atlantic, and Massachusetts in the North, considered an explicit recognition of States’ rights an essential condition for ratification of the Constitution. Of course, those who champion States’ rights and decentralization are often accused of preferring "Balkanization" over the blessings and security of "one nation." If the federal government followed its limited, constituted authority, such "Balkanization" would not be necessary, but hardly anyone in the founding generation would have agreed to a system of central government that currently exists in the United States. As Morris said in 1787, it would be better to separate than to subject one nation to the cultural imperialism of another State, section, or nation. Modern Americans have never been taught that lesson.





Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.