For those who remain a cheerleader of Abraham Lincoln, if you read the Constitution, and Lincoln’s scholarly critics, it becomes obvious that Abe’s expressed policies in his First Inaugural were unhistorical and constitutionally ignorant.

Try some of these gems:

“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect, and defend it.’”

Yet the South wanted nothing to do with destroying the federal government, they wanted to get away from it. It was Lincoln who invaded the South, not the other way around. Many northern editors insisted that war was abhorrent, and frequently denounced the idea of brutalizing millions of citizens fighting in defense of their homes.

The South’s few and brief invasions of the North were done not to aggrandize territory, but to end the war by a victory on northern soil that, if it occurred, would have brought this northern peace faction to the fore, a faction that historians either ignore or demonize.


“I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.”

Lincoln is confusing his oath to defend the Constitution, with defending the union, which are two entirely different things. He also cites an implied “universal law of all governments,” whatever that might mean. He obviously is making this up in his own supposedly genius mind, ignoring Jefferson’s own First Inaugural and Quincy Adams’ view of secession.

But if by “universal law” he meant “natural law,” Lincoln ignored that it was natural law that Jefferson cited to justify secession from the British Empire, and that the events of 1776 were just another example of a victimized group trying not to destroy a government, but to get away from it.

He even forgot his own words, uttered when he was in Congress 15 years earlier. Lincoln was a Whig at that time, likely echoing sentiments from Adams.

Most constitutional scholars insist that since the Constitution is silent on the matter of secession, that the “supremacy clause” trumps all arguments. But they never notice that the clause has an important caveat

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – most sacred right.”

It was Congressman Lincoln and President Lincoln who seemed to be having their own civil war.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any passage that would have justified his war. If such a passage had been accepted at the constitutional convention, it would have resulted in not one state ever ratifying the Constitution in 1788.

Here’s how the passage might have read: “No state, once accepted into this perpetual union, will be permitted to withdraw without suffering invasion from the several states and the United States.”

Something like it was actually discussed – and rejected – during the constitutional convention in 1787. Here is what James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” said:

“A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

It wasn’t hard to see that a time would soon come – a time we are now suffering under – when we would not be able to sustain our economic livelihood.

But in the 10th amendment you can find: “The powers not delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Most constitutional scholars insist that since the Constitution is silent on the matter of secession, that the “supremacy clause” trumps all arguments. But they never notice that the clause has an important caveat: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land …”

They never like to discuss the 10th amendment. Read it again. A state can do anything it wants that is not specifically prohibited. Thus, while the scholars pretend that the Constitution is silent on secession, they want to ignore the very part of the Constitution wherein the right is actually implied!

With this in mind, let’s go to Alaska, which voted in 1980 on the following citizen initiative. It found its way on the primary ballot because most Alaskans were outraged that the statehood compact had been broken when the federal government locked up our natural resources through Jimmy Carter and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]. It wasn’t hard to see that a time would soon come – a time we are now suffering under – when we would not be able to sustain our economic livelihood.

It was forestalled only because of the power and influence of Ted Stevens, who funneled massive amounts of federal grants and contracts to Alaska. A funnel which created our dependency and control to it.

Shall the Alaska Statehood Commission be convened to study the status of the people of Alaska within the United States and to consider and recommend appropriate changes in the relationship of the people of Alaska to the United States?

It passed, 46,705 to 45,598.

The governor-appointed commission then produced an air ball and nothing burger. It never studied the 1945 U.N. Charter, Section 73, which the United States signed. That document designated that the people of “Non-Self-Governing Territories” like were found in the Philippines, Indonesia, most of Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific islands – and Alaska and Hawaii – were to be given four options. They were:

— Remain a colony or territory.

— Amalgamate with the Mother Country (statehood).

— Commonwealth (independence with free trade).

— Independence.

Thus, at statehood, Alaska was offered only the first two options.

The courage needed for any of this to happen can only begin with the people.

And so – irony of ironies – if we were to accept the anti-secessionist “scholars” view of the Supremacy Clause, we would find that Alaska and Hawaii’s rights to the four options would supersede everything!

The Philippines opted for independence. No one considers that the Filipino people seceded, but merely exercised their treaty option. And Puerto Rico chose commonwealth, and still, to this day, might choose either statehood or independence.

The Alaskan Independence Party was accused of being a cheat when party founder Joe Vogler placed Walter Hickel on the ballot to become governor in 1990, and “racist” and “disloyal” and “secessionist” when Sarah Palin was chosen as John McCain’s VP pick in 2008.

As governor in 1992, Hickel challenged the lock-up of federal properties with a $29 billion lawsuit, and while Palin never joined the party, her husband unquestionably did. Like many spouses, she was with him at the AIP convention in Wasilla in 1992. And as governor in 2008, she gave a cheerful and encouraging welcoming address to the AIP convention in Fairbanks. You can find it online.

During Hickel’s tenure as governor with the AIP, the embittered party’s founder Joe Vogler disappeared. He was murdered, his body found over a year later in a shallow grave outside of Fairbanks. That he was one week away from being sponsored by Iran to speak before the U.N. general assembly on Alaska’s denied treaty obligations continues to fuel suspicions that his murder was a Deep State take-out job … something Lt. Gov. Jack Coghill certainly believed.

Let us summarize this historic situation that we are now witnessing, not in the light of mainstream “histories” and warped constitutional interpretations, but by what is true.

— Texas, and all states, have the right to secede.

— But Alaska merely needs to claim its proper options that were denied in the statehood vote of 1958, and which the federal government was obliged to fulfill by treaty.

— If Alaska’s congressional delegation, its state legislature and governor all pushed for these historical and constitutional truths, we might have an entirely improved relationship with an out-of-control federal government.

The question of the four options would not be left to the AIP, the governor or the state legislature. It would be left to the people, and voted on, just as Guam and Puerto Rico still do, whenever their elected officials decide it is time, or when a citizen initiative is created.

The courage needed for any of this to happen can only begin with the people. The AIP has tried to inform Alaskans for over 40 years. Conservatives need to join in this effort, whether they choose to remain as Republicans or independent voters.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.

OPINION: Texas & Alaska: Unilateral v. Peaceful Secession – Part 2

Bob Bird
Bob Bird ran for U.S. Senate in 1990 and 2008. He is a past president of Alaska Right to Life, a 47-year Alaska resident and a retired public school teacher. He has a passion for studying and teaching Alaska and U.S. constitutional history. He lives on the Kenai Peninsula and is currently a daily radio talk-show host for The Talk of the Kenai, on KSRM 920 AM from 3-5 pm and heard online


  • Tamra Nygaard says:

    Reality is that things would be pretty bleak up here without all that federal money. The feds own most of our land, too, and while that would change, we probably wouldn’t have the wherewithal to do anything with it. Oil money is great, but without airports, roads, and other infrastructure it’s difficult to market. The military bases support a great many folks up here as well. Much as we hate being tied to a bunch of idiots in DC, extricating ourselves from it would be a most painful process.

    • Lucinda says:

      Hey Tamra, we agree on something!

    • Toby Burke says:

      ….and surely wasn’t it painful for our forefathers to extricate themselves from the entanglements of the all-powerful British crown? Anyway, becoming independent of the U.S. would not necessarily mean we did not still have various social, economic, and yes, military ties with them. And could you imagine coal generated electricity at 7 cents a kw instead of “green” kw’s at 30, 40, and even 50 cents like today? Think of all the new found freedoms we might enjoy. Heck, while we’re there, can you even imagine a generous PFD guaranteed in perennial law rather than being pilfered and restricted by the mere whim of governors, legislators, and justices each and every year? Wow, governors, legislators, and justices abiding by a constitution – what a concept ! A government based in law and not the mere whims of men – how novel ! Has anyone considered introducing these novel ideas to Juneau and seeing if they might work? I do hope the newly independent country of Alaska has the power to deport if not execute those who do not believe in the rule of law. Silly me.

    • Yukon Jake says:

      Tamra, I have heard many people suggest that our strategic location as shield to the east, and our base and air force proximity to Russia and North Korea make our bases the most important to protect North America. The implication is that the bases would stay where they are and be long-term-forever-leased back to the federal government for approximately all of Alaska’s annual budgetary needs, which would amount to .2% of the annual US federal budget (again, to keep the shield raised against Russia and the Asian region). Food for thought.

    • Ray Southwell says:

      We could create our own public bank and build the infrastructure needed. Back our currency with oil. Exactly what has been going on with our money creation since 1973. The difference is building the infrastructure you are talking about will bring economic opportunity for all Alaskans.

      The United States became the economic driver of the world because of building an infrastructure of electricity. Today money creation is used for speculation for the wealthy and our need to maintain the dollar’s dominance with our military might while the middle class is being destroyed.

      The world is turning its back on the United States hegemony.
      Our $34,000,000,000,000 of national debt will generate disintegration of our nation. Secession is not needed. When the Soviet Union had their economic collapse it broke off new nations.

  • Bob Bird says:

    Tamra, we would not lose the military presence, as hemispheric defense would be part of a separation, just like the Philippines.
    But the point is NOT Alaska leaving the U.S. It is obtaining the rightful vote of FOUR options, not just two. With that right recognized, the federal gov’t would begin treating us with respect and as a full-fledged state, not a 2nd class one.

    • Lucinda says:

      Bird. How does the federal govt treat us as a 2nd class state?

    • Chuck Anziulewicz says:

      I don’t see how Alaska is being treated like a “second class” state. Senator Lisa Murkowski has quite a bit of influence.

    • Reggie Taylor says:

      “……..But the point is NOT Alaska leaving the U.S. It is obtaining the rightful vote of FOUR options, not just two. ……..”
      Texas v White (1869). All states have the right to ATTEMPT peaceful (or violent) secession. The peaceful version simply will never occur because it is insanity, and given full consideration with all the facts, the rest of the union will reject it. Unilateral secession will be war and certain death. There are 31 states in Mexico, 50 states in the U.S., and 10 provinces in Canada (with 3 territories). If we allow this continent to be divided into 94 sovereign nations (or 20 new ones), we will end up like Africa or Europe in eternal and continual warfare. We have to have continental balance of power, or we’ll end up in a feudal nightmare.
      “National divorce” is just as evil as marital divorce, and just as destructive to the family. Constitutional fidelity is just as spiritually binding as marital vows, and just as difficult. Citizens, like spouses, must live for each other as much as (or more) than for themselves. The increasing propaganda I hear now advocating divorce makes our society look like Israel in the first century with its multiple sects. The one that Christ called the “evil generation”.
      “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” – Nietzsche.
      Please, do not destroy this beautiful place and society. Choose peace, pick up your cross, and drag it forward, not unto Death for our children.

  • j says:

    Lincoln believed that secession was equivalent to anarchy. General will would dictate the law, and the law was to be obeyed with religious fervor. Furthermore, all appeals must be done within the confines of the constitutional system, a system whose fundamental principle was democratic majority rule. If the majority of States voted to dissolve the union, then and only then could it be dissolved. The idea that a minority could leave (aka dissolve the union) if they didn’t like the laws implies that this is a nation with no true laws – a principle applied constantly, is pure anarchy. A nation in which each man is a god unto himself, ascribing justice as he sees fit, unbeholden to any external power, is no nation at all.

    • Robert Bird says:

      Consider re-reading what Madison thought of this idea of a coercive union. Or Quincy Adams. Or Congressman Lincoln. Or Pres. Jefferson. You will never get a perfect world. We can work towards a better one. We took the path of coercion. Is it better?

      • J says:

        Lincoln’s idea was that we work towards a better world as a democratic majority under the precepts of the Constitution. He saw anarchy as more evil than traces of injustice within the system. He believed the system was properly ordered at its founding and as such it had a natural inclination towards the virtuous and advantageous. Furthermore, coercion is how law works, and once you recognize that the only other alternative is unilateral minority rule (the precept of secession and anarchy), it doesn’t sound so bad. Lastly, my position is uneffected by the political idiosyncrasies of the founders, this is an principle I understand as intrinsic to the essence of democracy after the social compact.

  • John H Slone says:

    Excellent article that again demonstrates the uniqueness of Alaska !! There are so many natural resources in Alaska locked up due to the federal governments control that we could be easily self sufficient on our own!!

    • Chuck Anziulewicz says:

      Go for it. Secede. As for Vladimir Putin’s help.

      • Lobo says:

        Chuck, I suggest that you take an educational class ( maybe several ) on the state of Alaska,… “” All Of ” it’s resources would be unlocked again, and our abilities that we already have to export/import by land, sea, and air… Unlike West Virginia, which is largely dependent on coal mining, followed by about half of that much as natural gas… The remaining West Virginian resources are miniscule when compared to coal.. And, by the way, your coal mines are being scheduled to shut down, in obedience to the Greenie agendas… Alaska is one of the richest states in the nation with a pretty good list of natural resources, ( huge crude oil, precious metals and minerals, wood, huge fishery ,,etc, etc. supplies available ) and with the democrat/federal government’s politicized hands off, we can very well be self sufficient… But to attempt to insert Vladimir Putin into the debate is a bit on the ignorant side of things .

  • William Wallace says:

    Hell ya! Tell them scalawags to shove their needles up their a/-/-/ !! Succeed from the swamp!
    Alaska is wealthy: US is way beyond repair, broke bankrupt both morally and financially!!
    We have the money and the upper hand!
    If we don’t succeed we will go down with the ship!
    Maybe Yukon Territory will join us? Whitehorse! Destruction Bay !

    • Reggie Taylor says:

      “……….Destruction Bay!……….”
      Appropriate new name for the proposed new nation, because that’s what we’d end up being.

  • William Wallace says:

    I will personally Knight all volunteers to join me at Alaska version of ; The Battle At Sterling Bridge!
    We are the Guardian’s of Alaska!
    The Fighting Mac’s of Alaska
    Let’s kick ass Alaska!!
    Take our resources back from the corporate banks!

  • Independent Observer says:

    Bob, I think the “universal law” Lincoln spoke of was the fact that God creates kings and kingdoms. They do His bidding to exert law and justice. So, it is not necessarily a federal government, but also state, and municipalities, all of which are equally intrusive and necessary. From this point of view some of what he said makes more sense.

  • James D Duncan says:

    Bob, thanks for posting. I agree with you and appreciate the AIP keeping the topic alive. With Texas beside us, we can get the feds to pump the brakes on federal over reach. It is not about winning a large financial settlement, it’s about the land.
    JD Duncan

  • Bob Bird says:

    I want to sincerely thank all those who have posted their objections. I anticipated them, but a 2-part essay would have become a 3-part. This conversation NEEDS to be discussed, aired out, debated. The times demand it. I also noted that there were no accusations of “treason”, like were thrown at Palin in 2008. The AIP’s primary mission, aside from correcting all the abuses of the Constitution that the federal gov’t is guilty of, is to make Alaskans aware that our “birth certificate” in the statehood vote of 1958 was a violation of the treaty obligations that the U.S. fulfills with all its other current and former colonies — except Alaska & Hawaii. If we demanded a re-vote, watch how magically we would gain a new respect for the development of our resources from the Uniparty in the DC Beltway, intimidated by the Green Lobby propaganda machine!

  • Bob Logan says:

    Well said Bob, in all regards. Alaska would explode economically if two things happened: Independence, and the implementation of private property with free markets. Look how the State has released so little of its land and has established regulatory agencies strangling businesses and property owners.

  • Bob says:

    Well written, and factual.
    I’d be all about voting on it, but with ABSOLUTELY ZERO mail-in ballots or machine processing. Both voting “enhancements” have led to us to a pitiful position where elections have lost the credibility they once had.

    • Becky says:

      Bob how did you expect Natives in the villages with no polling places and our thousands of soldiers abroad to vote? Telephone?

      • Friend of Humanity says:

        Becky, how did the PEOPLE in the villages vote before mail-in ballots and voting machines? My gosh. The world did exist and actually functioned pretty well when we used paper ballots and counted by hand. As for the military, what was used when they were ABSENT from their home state where they normally voted?

      • Becky says:

        FoH, can you point to a single Alaskan election in the history of statehood where significant fraud has been happened? They’ve been randomly auditing the voter rolls since 1987. Not a single audit has ever found even close to a 1% error rate between paper and electronic tallies. The voting machines are locked up in a secure facility with 24-7 security and they are not hooked up to the network. So they cannot be tampered with, and there is no way to hack them. Thats extremely accurate, safe and secure.