‘76 Was About Independence, Not Secession
‘76 Was About Independence, Not Secession
Many connect the desire for secession with the circumstances of the American Revolution. But there are crucial differences between independence movements and secession crises.
Welcome to the Self-Evident newsletter!
Recently, I was dismayed to see Nikki Haley suggest that states can secede from the Union. While I appreciate that she backtracked from that position and corrected herself (we too often reward politicians who double down on false premises while punishing those politicians with the humility to confess they said something that was wrong), I nevertheless am concerned that this long-settled constitutional question has entered our mainstream political dialogue.
Specifically, I’ve observed that there’s often a justification for the desire to secede from the union predicated upon the American Revolution, that such a desire is in keeping with the traditions of rebellion against British authority begun in 1776. So, in this week’s newsletter, I chose to address this spurious notion.
‘76 Was About Independence, Not Secession
Typically only the purview of a few exuberant Texans, the topic of secession is making its way into mainstream political conversations. Many connect the desire for secession in our present circumstances with the circumstances of the American Revolution. But such arguments are straining to connect present bombastic considerations with a past that demonstrates crucial differences between independence movements and secession crises.
It’s important to understand that the American colonies had no representation in Parliament and were not part of Great Britain as true realms or commonwealths. The rebellion that began in 1775 was a fight for independence from a dominating and distant dominion by an unrepresentative body and a tyrant monarch. The colonists were not seceding from a legitimate form of government. Indeed, it was the illegitimacy of arbitrary despotism perpetrated from across an ocean that drove them toward rebellion.
All but the most radical of the founders would admit that if they had proper representation, either in Parliament or through colonial assemblies allowed to govern quasi-independently, they wouldn’t have advocated for the measures they eventually embraced. The writing of George Mason best reflects their sentiments:
“...as long as we had any well founded hopes of the Reconciliation, I opposed, to the utmost of my Power, all violent Measures & such as might shut the Door to it; but when Reconciliation became a lost Hope,...when the last dutiful & humble petition from Congress received no other Answer than declaring us Rebels,...I from that Moment look’d forward to a Revolution & Independence.”
The founders, to the extent they became radicals and revolutionaries, were thrust into those roles by a King and a Parliament who refused to acknowledge their rights as Englishmen. While demonstrating radical elements, the American Revolution was nevertheless a uniquely conservative revolution. The patriot cause, especially in the earliest phases, was less a revolution of radicals positing new forms of government and understandings of rights and more a frontier society of predominantly Anglo-Saxon migrants whose position was simply that they had a claim to the same rights and the same traditions of government that English citizens elsewhere held.
The crown and Parliament drew the patriots into conflict as they chafed against violations of the English rights tradition, the traditions of English and British constitutionalism. Many of the issues that led to the American Revolution were issues that dated all the way back to the Magna Carta. They were issues fundamental to conflicts in England itself, such as the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution.
The American Revolution began less to create something new and more to re-establish what had been encroached upon by Parliament and the Crown under William III and the Tory Party. The truly revolutionary part of the American Revolution did not occur until after the war, when it became evident that thirteen independent States could not produce an agreeable society absent some overarching and effective form of general government. The founders only sought a radically new form of government after the former colonies had overthrown Parliament and the Crown and had failed to make a loose form of confederation work effectively.
But perhaps going beyond the American experience can better help put the difference between independence and secession in context. India, the various provinces of Africa, Spanish America, or any other former domain of colonial empire were not truly part of the countries that once controlled them. These colonies did not secede from nations in which they were equal members. They had been second-class dominions ruled arbitrarily by what were ultimately alien nations. They did not break off and create new countries, not really, but instead asserted their independence as sovereign nations.
And here’s the crucial part: they didn’t destroy a functioning political compact because they didn’t get their way politically after having had a voice at the table. They asserted a violation of sovereignty because of the dominance of an outside, alien power and a pattern of behavior that demonstrated they were not equal members of a political compact. These alien nations had subjected them to forms of domination. These were independence movements, defined by sovereignty and by the creation of new political compacts that granted full rights to a people relegated to second-class citizenship in an arbitrary colonial relationship.
On the other hand, secession is fueled not by political inputs (rights, the rule of law, etc.) but by political outputs. Secession is a reactionary backlash against the results of the political process. It is often the purview of people with full rights and citizenship, who can engage in the government the same as anyone, but whose interests have failed to gain influence in the process. A secession movement isn’t a movement asserting sovereignty, rights, or the rule of law. It is one that wants to break off into a smaller nation so they can have their way and don’t have to deal with the other interests in a broader free society.
So, what does this mean in the present American context, and how should talk of secession be dealt with from either side of the political spectrum? In the 21st century thus far, America has had an equal number of presidents from each major party. Both parties have had their turn controlling the Senate and the House. By all evidence, the major political parties will continue swapping control of the various branches of general government. Despite the claims of various extreme wings, there is neither massive election fraud nor serial voter suppression. Every American citizen still has equal access to engage in the political process. We still have tremendous rights that few in history have ever had.
Suggesting that any group of Americans has exhausted every avenue of redress is absurd. The Constitution largely remains intact, and we are still free to a larger extent than most people in the world. We are even better off than we have been at other moments in our history. The Alien and Sedition Acts period, the institution of Slavery, Woodrow Wilson’s war socialism, FDR’s New Deal, the South’s Jim Crow period...these were all periods of time that restricted freedom and political exercise far more than they are now. Again, advocates for secession are not objecting to a loss of political inputs. They want to break off from the country because they disagree with the political outputs. This is retreatism, defeatism, and a refusal to engage with other interests.
I hope I have demonstrated the crucial difference between secession and independence. As a final point, I’d like to add that we should not back away from viewing the Constitution as an inviolable political compact despite America’s present anxieties and social conflict. Part of the entire premise of many aspects of the Constitution is that certain things are beyond the authority of any simple majority to assail. Yes, we have elements of democracy in our form of government, but we remain, first and foremost, a republic. Just as no simple majority can or should assault our fundamental freedoms laid out in the Bill of Rights, no democratic majority in any given state can or should threaten the efficacy of the union or the Constitution by claiming the right to leave a perpetual political compact.
The Constitution and Union it created are singular miracles that stand out in human history as shining beacons of light in a world otherwise darkened by the shadows of tyranny. I agree wholeheartedly with the founders that light and transient circumstances and, indeed, anything short of absolute despotism fail to raise us to a point that necessitates what would be a calamitous and ruinous affair no matter how you cut it.
There is a certain prudence that rises from consulting experience, the oracle truth. If we consult that oracle, if we learn what history can teach us, we would recognize that what we have is unique, singular, and exceptional. If we can embrace that perspective, we would come to recognize that calls for secession ignore history, disregard the ideals and values our nation was founded on, and demonstrate a lack of gratitude for the gifts handed down to us by generations. We should not needlessly risk what they have given us, what their legacy charges us with handing down to generations yet to come, simply because we are angry with present political outcomes.
Please help us in our efforts to provide thought-provoking content by offering a donation to The Freemen Foundation.
ICYMI
Political Celebrity Intrusions and Inventions, by A.D. Tippet: “Quit worrying about celebrities and focus on pocketbook issues like jobs, inflation, crime, and controlled borders.”
Being Yourself and Being Your Better Self, by myself: “The goal is not authenticity, to simply “be ourselves” as if we each exist in a vacuum, personifying “truth” however we want to conceive it. The goal is excellence, and that requires growth predicated upon critical thinking, the application of reason toward a conscious choice of who and what we want to be and what constitutes becoming our better selves.”
Is Ron Paul a True Advocate of Freedom?, by Lincoln Gaffney: “I don’t believe that opposing U.S. funding to Ukraine is inherently pro-Russia. Nor do I believe opposing U.S. funding to Israel is inherently anti-semitic. However, supporting groups like the John Birch Society, as well as blasting against Zionism, is a very poor choice.”
Florida's Fight Against Racism: Right Formula, Wrong Answer, by Isaac Willour: “Words matter—especially the words we use for our enemies. Racism is a serious accusation. Sexism is a serious accusation. While we can have legitimate debates over the role that both play in modern American society, we cannot afford to let the language used to describe pernicious and transcendent forms of social evil become trite, partisan, or a club to wield against political rivals.”
The Two Minutes Hate, by James H. McGee: “Making the expression of hatred a fun event, an excuse to skip school and march around shouting hateful slogans, all with the approval, in fact, the active encouragement of the supposed adults in the room. All of this speaks to something deeply troubling about the state of our country.”
Subscribe, Share, Connect, Support
Well, I’m sure it’s clear by now that I’m not a fan of secession. Subscribe if you have a similar inclination.
And please, consider supporting our efforts here at the Freemen News-Letter and our broader vision at The Freemen Foundation by offering a one-time, monthly, or yearly donation, and be sure to follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Stay Free My Friends,
-Justin Stapley
Justin Stapley received his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from Utah Valley University, with emphases in political philosophy, public law, American history, and constitutional studies. He is the Founding and Executive Director of the Freemen Foundation as well as Editor in Chief of the Freemen News-Letter. @JustinWStapley