At breakfast this morning a friend lamented the state of things and how bad it would be before it would get better. I gave my standard, wore out, response that all democracies have dissolved when the populace voted themselves a larger share of the community grain than those left to [...]]]> Email hopeandchange@usa.com to receive email notice of posts.

At breakfast this morning a friend lamented the state of things and how bad it would be before it would get better. I gave my standard, wore out, response that all democracies have dissolved when the populace voted themselves a larger share of the community grain than those left to harvest grain could provide. On the face, this looks like an economic principle and this is where our discussion wandered to. But it really is about individual rights. Specifically, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When I was in high school, our history teacher, Rick Zeller, stated that the Civil War was a war for state’s rights, not a war for slavery. I remember him fondly. He was wrong, sort of, but right. Back to that in a minute. I have very strong opinions on the act of succession in terms of rights and the constitution, but generally keep them to myself. People cannot, and perhaps should not, separate the Civil War from the slavery debates of the day. This is especially pungent as that is the only succession in our nation’s history. But Chris Mathews equated succession with racism on his show on Tuesday and I could not keep this quiet any longer. If there were a predominantly Black state, and said state succeeded, would it still be racist? Certainly not. Because the right has nothing to do with the motivations. Speak freely without fear of persecution by those who don’t like your agenda.

I go back to the difference between rights and privileges. What is a right, and what is a privilege? The example I often point to is of the stranded man on the deserted island. He has the right to free speech without an audience, but cannot have the privilege of health care without a similarly stranded doctor with a concern for his survival. I have posted an old email distribution entitled, “If only the hens were less partisan,” in case you want to get a feel for my opinions of such things.

But the idea that came up in Mr. Mathews’ throat a little, is that succession is contrary to the founding principles of our country. I assert that the right of succession was THE founding principle of our country. More specifically perhaps, the right of succession was the straw that broke the powers-of-government-come-from-the-governed camel. This is the most basic founding principle of America. Mr. Zeller lost me on a nuance, but the core, is that the Civil War was about the state’s right to succeed, (so as to infringe upon the individual right to freedom) without federal intervention. The south was right in that the states have the right to succeed, and the north was right in that no government has the right to enslave people. This is the principle I cite in defending ousting tyrannical despots oppressing other peoples. America either has the right to stop tyranny and oppression now, through military force if needed, or did not have the right to do so in the Civil War.

All of this is tied to the most basic of American principles: A person cannot sign away their rights, they can only tolerate the infringement of them. A government can only infringe on the people’s rights so long as people are willing to tolerate it. The south infringed on slave’s rights because they were able to. Slaves tolerated slavery because the alternative was torture and death and watching their families tortured and murdered. This lasted until the north was able to stop the southern states by forcing the south to tolerate the northern infringement on state’s rights.

What does this have to do with our founding and why could Mr. Mathews not be more wrong? Government only exists, can only act in our interest and to our oppression, so long as we tolerate it. Some governments are able to force such tolerance to an extreme state through violence, torture, and fear. Ours to a lesser degree does so with insecurity and coercion. Much of the coercion comes in terms of infringement on the rights of the unborn. We borrow now to pay us to agree to borrow more later. The next generation will pay back the 30 year bonds that cover this borrowing. (Or not) Are they taxed without representation? You bet!! If they refuse to work toward replacing past consumption, who will pay the IRS to arrest them for not paying their share? Who will work for the IRS or be jailers if not paid? Without people willing to serve as volunteer government employees, what government would there be? None.

The King of England signed a treaty with 13 colonies, called sovereign states, to end the war of succession from the crown. IF those states gave away some of their rights to form the Union, they have the ability to take them back, to rejoin Britain if they chose. If Congress has the authority to make a law, it has the authority to repeal it. If the states had the authority to join the Union, they would have to have the authority to leave it. If the states had the authority to adopt a constitution, they would have to have the authority to change it. So, even if the Civil War “settled the succession thing,” the debate would be, to what extent we go to force a state to remain a member of the Union. If so forced, they were stopped from infringing on the right of the union to exist as Mr. Mathews ignorantly implies, then we infringed on the right of Britain to rule us. This is silly of course, Britain had no right to govern us, only the ability.  Regardless if we change government through apathy for its actions or by Constitutional Convention, we have the right to do so. We are under no moral obligation to be governed. Succession is a form of apathy whereby the state thumbs its collective nose and says, “I don’t care, you’re not the boss of me.”

My Virginia ancestors (not familial necessarily) agreed to form the Commonwealth which later agreed to declare its independence from the Crown, years before the Declaration of Independence was signed. We agreed to join the Union and to succeed from it. We agreed to rejoin when we could not fend off the federal infringement and tolerate further Civil War. Was that all bad? Certainly not. Is slavery the only issue which would motivate a state to succeed? Certainly not.

Mr. Mathews in the progressive mold, believes that our founding fathers were small minded racists who forced their agenda of personal freedom and liberty on a defenseless population and that their decedents indoctrinated innocent children with this belief. He believes that the countless millions who fled countries without freedom and liberty to come here, did so out of ignorance to make this the greatest country in the world at the hands of greedy companies preying on their ignorance. Mr. Mathews justifies forcibly controlling people who disagree with the government by asserting that such disagreement is racially motivated and people cannot simply leave. Mr. Mathews would do well to consider that the right of succession enables states to resist governors he considers stupid and racist as well. Would he call California racist if it had succeeded under Bush? Massachusetts could succeed if the Union forbid the collection of taxes for the purpose of purchasing health insurance for those who could not pay otherwise. It is hypocritical for Mr. Mathews to attack conservatives as being hell bent on controlling what people do, but unwilling to allow succession should they succeed.