Is Secession Sedition?

By Russell D. Longcore

I have heard people tell me that they are afraid of secession because of what happened to the Confederate States of America. They have also heard that the act of secession is an act of sedition.

Well, is it or not?

The definition of the word “Sedition” is:

1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. Archaic, rebellious disorder.

Looking at the first definition, we find “Incitement” means encouraging, stimulating or provoking to action. DumpDC certainly does all three of those through pointing out to readers the abject folly and criminal behavior of the Washington DC gang. We take comfort that we are fellow travelers with men like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison…all seditious writers of the mid-18th century. We qualify with definition number 2, since we write and speak to promote such discontent of rebellion. Number 3 doesn’t define us, since we are not archaic or disorderly.

But remember…sedition is not illegal. But if it was…should sedition cease? Did the Founders cease their rebellion against King George when their actions were deemed unlawful?

There is 18 USC 2384 (which is still law) that reads:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

The colonies were owned by King George, and the colonial secession was indeed an action to possess the King’s property.

But DumpDC does not promote the overthrow, putting down, or the destruction of the United States Federal Government. We do not wish to levy war against Washington. We do not wish to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States. We do not wish to take or possess any property of the United States.

We. Just. Want. To. Leave.

If a state leaves the Union, it is no longer subject to any Federal law or Court. It is no longer subject to any Federal taxation of any kind. It is no longer subject to the myriad regulations from all the three-letter agencies of the Federal Government. The seceded state is as sovereign as France, Canada, Mexico, China, or Switzerland.

The 18 USC 2384 statute brings up an interesting point: Who owns the states? Does the Federal Government own the states? If it does, then secession would indeed be an effort to take or possess property of the United States. But if the states are not owned by Washington, they are ALL free to affiliate with whomever they choose, or affiliate with no other political entity. Remember…the Northern victory of 1865 did not settle the question of whether or not a state could secede from the Union. It merely defeated the CSA army in the field. Nothing in the Constitution changed regarding secession.

Secession is the only solution to restore personal liberty and property rights on the North American continent. Who will be first?

Dump D C: Six Letters That Can Change History.

Copyright 2012: Russell D. Long core. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

24 Responses to Is Secession Sedition?

  1. Secession was not treason, contrary to what many “news” pundits today say. And the Confederate States government was not trying to overthrow the US government. All the Confederates wanted was to be able to go their own way and let the federal government go its own way without them.

    The Constitution did not forbid secession, in fact most of the original 13 colonies probably would not have signed on in the first place if they thought they were getting into a union they could never get out of no matter what.

    A couple of the states, in their ratification ordinances clearly stated that, should this new union not work out, they reserved the right to get out of it and go their own way and their ratification ordinances were accepted with that language in them.

    There are different viewpoints in the secession movement, at least in the South. One view is that we need to secede all over again, start from scratch, as it were. Another view is that, since the Confederate government never officially surrendered that the Confederate States are still seceded. I tend to favor this viewpoint more than the first one.

    For those that bring up the case of the Confederate States rescinding their secession ratifications, in their situations at the end of the War they were pretty much coerced back into the Union and I am not sure recissions made under coercion have much validity.

  2. Hey You says:

    As a resident of southern Nevada, I feel sort’a left out. You see, this part of southern Nevada was never admitted to the USA union. On admission day, in 1864 (Oct 31st), Nevada’s north-south boundary was from 42 deg latitude to 37 deg latitude. Hence, this southern triangle of southern Nevada south of 37 deg was never admitted into the USA.

    I’m not sure what this means, except the USA government’s claim to administrate this area may not be legitimate. Maybe something to build on?

  3. […] Russell Longcore: Is Secession Sedition? […]

  4. […] Russell asks a good question. Share this:TwitterFacebookRedditPrintEmailStumbleUponDiggLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← Word […]

  5. frick says:

    Secede? You mean secede from the Union? The republic States incorporated to form the Union, aren’t they the only entities that can consider secession?
    Perhaps you mean expatriate?
    The people of the republics prior to the War Between the States were not “citizens of the United States” Federal Government, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. (see 14th Amendment)
    Citizenship is one’s relation to a government. Citizenship is not one’s nationality.
    Most Americans no longer know or understand the history of the States of the Union. They each have Constitutions (treaties), they are seperate nations recognized in law and internationaly. One does not need to leave the Union to expatriate the federal US. One only needs to reclaim rightful nationality to the republic of their birth and relenquish federal US government citizenship. Title 8 USC ss 1481.
    Read the US Constitution and see that the federal form of government instituted in 1789 was “reconstructed” beginning 1865 into a national form of government. The American people today consent (are citizens) to a form of government contrary to the constitutional form of government founded 1789.

    The political structure of the form of government instituted 1789:
    The States of the Union created the US.
    The State Legislatures appoint US Senators. (Article I, Section 3.)
    The State Legislatures appoint members to the Electoral College who vote for US Presidential Candidates. (Article II, Section 1.)
    The people of the States elect US Representatives (Article I, Section 2) in State elections. (Article I, Section 4).
    A “federal form” of government.

    The political structure of the form of government instituted 1868:
    The people vote for US President, US Senators, and US Representatives in National elections. (Articles of Amendment XIV, XV, and XVII)
    A “national form” of government.

    To which form of government do you consent and participate?

    Beginning to see the governmental problem in America?

    Wake up America.

    To say we are a republic because we were founded a republic, is to ignore the “Reconstruction” era and is therefore a lie. We are a National Democracy, the antithesis of the constitutional Republics as founded.

    You US Constitutional scholars, please weigh in.

    Please read for further understanding;

    http://www.pacinlaw.org/treason

    • dumpdc says:

      Dear Frick- I said “secession.” I meant Secession. And as far as the US Constitution is concerned, read “No Treason” by Lysander Spooner. You’ll get over your Constitution worship. Russ

      • frick says:

        Russ,
        Didn’t mean to offend here.
        Not Constitution worship….Lysander knew his stuff, no doubt.
        But Russ, what good can come from dissenting the federal US while at the same time consenting the federal US?
        It is hoped that whomever institutes a form of government in the seceeded States, they at least know the difference between forms of government. The American people today sadly, do not know. Merely reading the US Constitution is proof enough of that.

      • frick says:

        Also with regard to expatriating the federal US; the federal US may not look kindly upon a State that is seceeding the Union with federal US citizens and federal property. Something to consider?

  6. Michael DeJoy says:

    Questions. If California secedes it can ally itself with Mexico, yes? What about other states aligning with enemy, islamic countries, next door to your home state. Try to imagine various states linked up with different countries, I do not like this idea. Why should we leave? Why don’t we fight for our country? You see, this is the problem with republicans and conservatives, they would rather leave than fight. Most are sheeple looking for a comfortable life. What will work is when we decide this is our country and they have to leave, not us. Mexicans to Mexico, Blacks to… who cares?

    • dumpdc says:

      Mr. DeJoy- yes, most sheeple are looking for a comfortable life. But secession would be very hard, but it would be worth it. If secession occurs after an economic collapse, just daily living would be rough. And if a nation allies with another “enemy,” is it a sovereign nation or not? Spend some time reading in the Archive. Russ

  7. 6 gunner says:

    It was always my understanding that even discussion of secession was a crime which seemed to me a conflict with certain constitutional protections.In fact it seems to me that it would be counterintuitive to the founding of this country, but perhaps that’s just my limited perspective. I say if we’re not free to discuss an idea then we’re not free in any respect period.

  8. doctorkris says:

    Wake up people! It doesn’t matter if you find a legal “loophole” or maneuver or whatever. What are you going to do? Take ’em to court? Sue for permission to secede? Like a dirty-faced Dickens urchin “Please sir, may I have some Liberty?”

    To paraphrase CA of WRSA:
    “We’re Screwed. There’s gonna be fight. Let’s win.”

    Sorry. I feel better now.

  9. 858x70 says:

    Wake up people! I doesn’t matter if you find a legal “loophole” or “maneuver” or whatever. What are you gonna do? Take Leviathan to court? Sue for permission to secede? Act like a dirty-faced Dickens urchin “Please sir, may I have some Liberty?”

    As CA says…
    “We’re screwed. There’s gonna be a fight. Lets win.”

  10. 858x70 says:

    “But if the states are not owned by Washington, they are ALL free to affiliate with whomever they choose, or affiliate with no other political entity. Remember…the Northern victory of 1865 did not settle the question of whether or not a state could secede from the Union. It merely defeated the CSA army in the field. Nothing in the Constitution changed regarding secession.”

    Mr. Longcore, you are right and wrong in equal measure. By defeating the CSA army the Feds “proved” themselves “right”. Might, you see, makes right. The fact that a rapist does not have the legal, moral, or ethical “right” to do as he pleases is, I’m sure, scant comfort to his victim. The evolved concept of “legality” does not change the primitive fact that he has imposed his will on his victim.

    • dumpdc says:

      Dear 858- Conceding the point. But here is the bottom line. Nobody has to sue for secession or appear in some Federal Court. All the seceding state need to do is to deliver the Ordinance of Secession to Washington. Legally that ends it. Sure, the bullets may fly after that, but once a state secedes, it is no longer a state of the Union. Thanks for writing, Russ

      • 858x70 says:

        “… but once a state secedes, it is no longer a state of the Union.”
        Until it is, again. For example, after Appomattox.
        The legal/paperwork part is the easy part. Don’t gloss over the “… bullets may fly…” part. That’s the hard part, and I dare say the only part that really matters. There is no legal maneuver, incantation, please-and-thank-you, or triplicate form to complete that will allow a state, county, or geographic area to secede without violence (if the Feds are capable of doing violence).
        Am I wrong? (Really, no snark)

      • dumpdc says:

        Dear 858- Remember the USSR in 1989. The Red Army did nothing and 15 states seceded. Russ

  11. Mike says:

    Au contraire, my friend: it is sedition. The very act of leaving the Union is “taking possession of the King’s Property”. The states are no more than appendages, “property” if you will, of the Federal Government. Whatever that dead letter, the Constitution, says is irrelevant. The Federal government acts as if the states are its property; the States submit to federal authority virtually automatically on almost every question; and the People of this country no longer pay attention to their state citizenship (they consider themselves “Americans”, first and foremost). Via decades of judicial precedent, we are now at the point where the POTUS claims and exercises the authority to take your life should you be deemed a “terrorist” threat to the State, with no judicial or legislative review of any sort. He who holds the power of life and death over you owns you, de facto if not de jure.

    Therefore, taking YOURSELF away from Federal jurisdiction is itself an act of rebellion. Taking an entire state away from the Union, even if you don’t fire a single shot, will be seen as an act of war.

    You ain’t getting away that easily. The Feds will reduce your state to rubble and your people to destitution before they will see any state leave the Union. And the rest of the lot will be cheering them on every step of the way.

    • dumpdc says:

      Mike- All the things you say would be true about a secession before the economic collapse. But everything will be different after the Dollar collapses. Just remember the USSR…and they dissolved without having the world reserve currency. Russ

  12. Mike says:

    Dumpdc —
    +

    The only question is whether the FEDGOV will react to that seceding State as the USSR did with Latvia/Lithuania/East Germany or if it will react that way Russia did in the case of Chechnya or the way Yugoslavia did in the case of Bosnia or Croatia?

    Do not delude yourself: the Chechnya/Croatia/Bosnia scenario is the most likely one (think Waco writ large).

    Should the dollar collapse, food and energy will become prohibitively expensive; there will be millions who will be willing to do anything (including killing their fellow citizens) in exchange for “three squares and a cot”. What do you think that recent National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order was all about? It wasn’t just updating old EOs (which is bad enough) — it was setting the stage for the full nationalization of the American economy when the currency collapse takes place. At that point, the FEDGOV will not lack for executioners eager to do its will. It’s kind of hard to talk to someone about “liberty” when his kids are starving.

    • dumpdc says:

      Mike- if the dollar collapses, what is DC going to pay soldiers with? Don’t forget that soldiers have families, and you should expect massive AWOLs and desertions as the soldiers go home to take care of their loved ones. I’m just saying, and will continue to say, that the collapse of the dollar will change everything. Russ

  13. Michael Hill says:

    Very good article. The way I see it, there are three likely scenarios: 1) serfdom; 2) bloody revolution; 3) secession (which may be met by force). I prefer #3. We have legal and historical precedent for it. In fact, we in The League of the South have been promoting it–and organizing for it–for almost 18 years. I am happy to hear more and more voices advocating secession as an antidote to DC’s misrule and tyranny.–Michael Hill, http://www.dixienet.org

    • dumpdc says:

      Dear Michael-

      Welcome!! Thanks for your kind words, and I hope we can work together to re-establish personal liberty and property rights on the North American continent. Regards, Russ

  14. Jack Meoff says:

    For currency, use Canadian Dollars. Unlike the U.S. Dollar, they are solvent. Also, the states most likely to secede contain much of the current U.S.’s Agriculture and Energy. Get the Dakotas and others like OK, KS, NE, UT, ID, MT, WY and Alaska to come along and you bring the remainder of the Grain Belt and most of the Oil and Natural Gas. For you Greenies, that’s where most of Wind is as well. And the ICBM silos are located there, might I add…:) Using Canadian Currency, we could take care of ourselves and at the same time rip the heart out of the Old U.S. Unable to meet their obligations and saddled with the National Debt, Old America collapses. You see, The Debt resides with Old America. We are a new, Debt-Free Nation using non-U,S, currency. We sit it out, watch the gutted structure crash and burn, then move in and pick up the rest of the marbles. How’s that for secession?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: