Much That Is Hidden

.
I might hafta mosey over and see what this fuss is all about:

Secessionists meeting in Tennessee
By Bill Poovey, Associated Press

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions — New England and the South — are sitting down to talk.

Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.

That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence.

"We believe that an independent South, or Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont would be better able to serve the interest of everybody, regardless of race or ethnicity," said Michael Hill of Killen, Ala., president of the League of the South...(read more)

Killen, huh? Perhaps the vice-president is from Lynchburg (rrrummpish!). And this is the first I've heard of northern leftists that are pushing for secession. I always figured those pinko pansies would opt for the "leave it" part of the old two-part "America:" slogan.

But seriously, that this is happening right down the road is titillating. I've had passing "what ifs?" on this subject through the years, but I wasn't aware of any concerted effort beyond some weak bumper sticker aphorisms. But reading this I must say I can see how this scenario is becoming less and less of an ideological pipe dream and more and more a distinct possibility, given the current polarized state of affairs here. Libertarians have been working on a similar separatist tack on a minimized electoral basis (I didn't dig in to see how well it was going but my guess would be "not particularly").

Could an ideologically divided United States of America work? It seems to me that the shaky ground right off the bat would be in the implementation of national defense. Certainly there would have to be some sort of non-aggression pact in place to keep the peace between states, but is that something that could stand the test of time and it's changing political winds? What about trade? Or labor? Immigration?

So I'm seriously considering a trip downtown this week, assuming the secessionists might have some answers or at least food for thought. My ideological appetite would of course be more aroused by the tofu of the pointy-headed liberals than by the greasy barbecue of the good old boys, but I'm open-minded. I've never considered states rights to be a bad thing - the founders set up the constitution that way for a reason, and one of those was surely so that differing regions could adjust their structure of government to best suit the purposes of their peoples. The concept has indeed gotten a bad rap for its association with southern racist/secession thinking (if you can call it that). As the University of North Carolina history professor says in the article, it's a surprise to see the liberals conferring with the League of the South, "an organization that's associated with a cause that many of us associate with the preservation of slavery."

My gut feeling is that these two groups are likely just too fringe-y to accomplish anything, but that they have come so far as to gather and talk is enough to gain my interest.

UPDATE: Unfortunately I wasn't able to make it to the conference, but here is the article from the Chattanooga Times-Free Press.
.

Labels: gummint, politix, riiiiights, The South

.

"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on Earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787

Today marks the 215th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. Every person in America knows it is comprised of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, some more than others. You furrners know, of course, that as the greatest country in the universe we're pretty proud of James Madison's humble little framework. Despite his advanced age, the Bill (or The Billster, as I like to call him) is still somewhat prominent today, though in a conceptual sense. As I understand, the original was destroyed after two copies were made - one by rolling a big wad of Silly Putty over the parchment, peeling it back and mounting it on the ceiling above Ruth Bader-Ginsburg's indoor pool. There it can only be read by keeping totally still and thinking pure thoughts. The other has the words - and man, there's a bunch of them - etched into granite and placed in Antonin Scalia's billiard room, where hyphenated bitch Justices with lead pipes are expressly forbidden from tinkering with it.

Anyway, Libertarian policy wonk Adam B. Summers writes in today's Orange County Register that the poor old BOR ain't what she used to be. He cites TJ himself in maintaining that among the 10 original amendments, Old No. 10 is the most important of them all, not to mention a damn good sour mash recipe.

Jefferson wrote in 1791:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: 'That all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition."

To which Summers adds this analysis:

"The Anti-Federalists (like Jefferson) were, sadly, prescient in their criticisms of government power under the Constitution and the tendency of men and women of ambition to find ways to expand that power at the expense of the governed. The founders must be spinning in their graves. Nearly everything the government does today is unconstitutional under the system they instituted. Governmental powers were expressly limited; individual liberties were not. Now it seems it is the other way around."

What's a poor civilian to do?
.

Labels: analysis, Anti-Federalists, gummint, histoire, justice, riiiiights, TJ