Secession is Just Give and Take

There has been a lot of inane and silly talk floating around America about how states cannot secede. Edwin Vieira wrote a long dissertation about it, with lots of footnotes and other stuff that made his article look scholarly.

All poppycock, balderdash and piffle.

In the real world…the world in which you and I live…principals may hire agents to represent them. But principals also have the right to fire agents. The principal gives and the principal can also take away.

A “principal” is defined as a person or entity who authorizes another, as an agent, to represent him or her.

An “agent” is a person or entity (as an employee or independent contractor) authorized to act on behalf of and under the control of another.

If I am an actor and I hire an agent, I sign a contract in which both his and my responsibilities are stated. If he violates his terms or commits acts beyond his authority, I can fire him.

If I am an owner of real estate, and I hire someone to manage my real estate, I sign a contract in which both his and my responsibilities are stated. If he mishandles my real estate, I can fire him.

If I’m a partner in a real estate investment trust, I can both hire and fire a property manager who is managing the trust under a contract.

If I hire an attorney to represent me in a legal matter, we will agree on the terms and conditions of his representation. If he violates those terms, I can fire him.

If I am a manufacturer, and hire a manufacturer’s representative to sell my products, we will agree on the terms and conditions under which the rep will sell my goods. If he violates those terms, or mishandles my account, I can fire him.

So, by now you see that agents have no power other than that power granted to them by the principal.

In 1787, a group of men met in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia to draft a Constitution. The men were delegates, appointed by the states…the sovereign nations along the Eastern Seaboard of North America. They had just won their independence from Great Britain. The states were the principals in this example. They drafted a Constitution, and the management company named “The United States of America” (USA) was formed. The USA was the agent of the states, given strictly defined powers and duties by the principals. Further, the Constitution was later amended to assure the principals that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, and to the people” (10th Amendment).

We can argue about whether or not the Constitution had or now has any authority. But one thing that is not arguable is whether principals can fire agents. And the sovereign states that are the principals here in America can and should fire “The United States of America” for gross misfeasance and malfeasance.

The states gave power to “The United States” in the late 18th Century. It is their natural right to take away any or all of that power anytime they choose. Further, because they created “The United States,” it is the right of the states to alter, abolish or simply dissolve it and start over.

So I’m confused by, and not a small amount irritated at all the Tenthers, Tea Parties and other so-called “Patriot groups” that wish to bring the “United States” back under the control of the sovereign states. The states are presently unprepared to assert that action. No state presently has their own currency, nor do they have their own state militia.

The states have neither the power nor ability to bring Washington to heel. The Congress members and Senators get their paychecks from the US Treasury, not state coffers. Congress has no incentive to bow to state demands.

In order to bring Washington DC to heel, states would have to somehow slash Federal spending while nullifying ALL Federal law affecting state citizens. At this point, I do not know of a single American state that is willing or able to perform these herculean tasks.

But do you know what act completely ends all the drama, and dissolves any and all political bands between any state and “The United States?”

The Act of Secession.

Any state can issue a Declaration of Independence TODAY.

Any state can follow that up with a formal Ordinance of Secession TOMORROW.


The seceding state severs its connection with the “United States,” subject to no power on earth other than “The Supreme Judge of the World.” Its sovereignty is the same as France, or China, or Brazil, or Russia or any other nation.

The seceding state repudiates the debt assumed by the United States. Therefore, all state citizens are likewise released from any obligation to pay the US debt or US taxes. They are no longer US citizens, and as such, owe nothing to the USA.

The seceding state repudiates all Federal regulation instantly. Imagine that!

The seceding state ceases sending ANY money of any kind to Washington.

The seceding state confiscates all Federal property inside its borders.

Friends, it is so very simple. For any state to continue as a slave state to the rogue government known as “The United States” is insane. The “United States” is the management company created by the states…a manager that has tried to convince the States that “The United States” is now the principal, rather than the hired agent.

One does not negotiate with criminals. The right path is to separate from the criminals and ignore their actions.

Secession is the hope for humanity. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

7 Responses to Secession is Just Give and Take

  1. […] is Just Give and Take Posted on April 22, 2010 by Bill Miller This article by Russell D. Longcore on Friends, it is so very simple. For any state to continue as a slave state to the rogue government […]

  2. Russell, you wrote,”And the sovereign states that are the principals here in America can and should fire “The United States of America” for gross misfeasance and malfeasance.”

    I wish you would refer to the government rather than the country,the “United States government,” rather than the “United States of America.” Those are two separate groups: 1.)Americans; and 2.) government officials, bureaucrats, gangsters, dirtbags, counterfeiters, embezzlers, cheaters, liars, robbers, etc.

    The one to be fired is the federal government, not the country.

  3. D. V. Arminius says:

    All well and good, Russell, logically and convincingly argued to my satisfaction (and tried in 1860-1861 with stupendously disastrous results for us all!)… You can be sure the Feds would not take a single state seceeding lying down. Nor would they stand for the loss of ‘their’ property or forgive what they see as that state’s portion of the national debt. I give you the example of Lincoln, who stated that the liberation of Florida from the Spanish cost the union some $100 million. All Southerners know that the War for Southern Independence was fought by the north over monetary issues and that slavery was not hit upon as an issue by Lincoln until some two years into the conflict (slavery was still legal in Washington, D.C. until April, 1862!). That being so, the issue remains – the Feds WILL forcibly occupy a seceeding state and demand compliance with Federal law at bayonet point; they have no other logical or tactical recourse. What then? Armed resistance? The Ghandi approach?

    • dumpdc says:

      Mr. Arminius-

      The reason states were supposed to keep “well-regulated militias” was EXACTLY to thwart Federal tyranny. When states reconstitute their militias, they will be one half of the way to being prepared to secede. The other half is to coin their own money…gold and silver money. Check my archive for articles about both topics.

  4. D. V. Arminius says:

    Mr. Longcore,
    Agreed on the role of the militia; and you are to be commended for taking the long view, even though events may very well spiral out of Federal control before state militias can be formed. However, you are assuming that the Feds will just stand by and allow states to form militias entirely under state control. I suspect that they will take the stand that the states’ National Guards (under Federal control, we note!)now constitute what the Constitution refers to as the ‘militia’ and they will actively oppose the formation of any armed force not directly under their control. It is my fervent prayer that secession can be accomplished bloodlessly, but I do not believe the Feds will allow any ‘chartered’ armed forces to form in this country that fall outside of their direct control. We do have the lens of history through which we can examine the topic of secession. If we apply it, we can only come to the conclusion that the Feds will not be passive about it. That perhaps being so and despite the fact that I can no longer claim to be even ‘late middle aged’, I’d sign up today in a militia in my state if they would have an old man!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: