The American union is becoming increasingly untenable. De Facto secession by the Left is bringing this about, through their “sanctuary cities” gambit, ongoing now for decades.
Let’s make this clear: the American Civil War, better named the War Between the States or the War for Southern Independence, was a colossal mistake, utterly unconstitutional, and an example of the worst elements of New England Puritanical hypocrisy. It completely ignored that it was New England which first threatened secession, in the early 1800s. In his First Inaugural Address, incoming president Thomas Jefferson directly said that they would be making a mistake, but he would not stop it.
Everyone knew in 1800 that secession was the backbone of American independence, and is cited as Natural Law in the first breath of the Declaration. During the constitutional convention of 1787, the suggestion that the union would be glued by force, was completely disowned by James Madison and the vast majority of the delegates.
New England’s beef was the admission of large new western states coming into the union. Kentucky and Tennessee came in under Washington, Ohio was soon upcoming, and many more states easily envisioned for the near future. It would diminish New England’s political influence in the federal union, which they wanted to morph from a true confederacy (small “c”) into a nationally controlled entity.
It was pure selfishness, but then, local interests are legitimate. During the War of 1812, New England’s complaints were far more justified, as they were essentially in a tremendous economic depression due to the war, their reliance upon maritime trade, and were close to starvation. A convention to discuss their options occurred in Hartford, Connecticut. It basically gave an ultimatum for their continuance in the union, but evaporated into embarrassed silence when Napoleon was defeated and Jackson smashed the British in New Orleans.
Portland and other “sanctuary cities” have an obligation to protect the entire union from illegal immigration.
That Abraham Lincoln ignored all this, or was too uneducated to be schooled in it, is unlikely. John Quincy Adams, a former president serving in the U.S. House, called secession justified for New England and its abolitionist sentiments, when Texas was admitted into the union, in 1845. He had a point, but the fervor of New England sectionalism had diminished by then. A nationalistic union was underway with the Mexican War, which the South supported, in its quest for new slave states.
The point to make here is that liberalism – by modern definition – is always in favor of centralized and increased national power. The liberal political parties of the past were the Federalists, National Republicans, Whigs and the Republican Party of Lincoln, himself a former Whig.
It was the northern Democrats of 1861-65, also known as Copperheads, who correctly understood that whatever a state’s reasons might be, good or bad, selfish or noble, secession was their call to make. They were a weak, but continuously annoying, political thorn in the side of Lincoln’s fratricidal war.
As a former chairman of the Alaskan Independence Party, the cries of “Treason!” “Racists!” etc., have been thrown by the media at us, especially when Sarah Palin ran for vice-president. It was never done when she was governor, and she was never ashamed that her husband was an AIP member and convention attendee, when Hickel was governor and the AIP was at its height of popularity.
But the AIP doesn’t want Alaska to secede. It wants the state to recognize that the U.S. reneged on its treaty obligation to extend four options to Alaska and Hawaii, one of which was independence. And, the U.S. still holds this promise with Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The Philippines did not secede from the U.S.; they merely exercised their treaty options.
We are on the cusp of a true civil war, one that has quite possibly been patiently orchestrated by human and demonic forces.
Liberals are hypocrites. Everyone not a liberal knows this. By creating “sanctuary cities,” they defied the clearly legitimate and constitutional power of the federal government to protect our borders, whether by military invasion or illegal entry. It seemed like a cute and useless gesture at first, sort of like their now forgotten “nuclear free zones.”
But now, the easily predictable trajectory of the results of “sanctuary cities” is becoming ripe fruit. They tried in 2020, with ANTIFA and BLM riots and micro-secession zones in Seattle, Minneapolis and Portland. Suddenly, secessionists were not racists or traitors, and the media never once lifted this cry like they did against the AIP and Sarah Palin.
I have been the first to decry Donald Trump’s unconstitutional actions, whether they are good or bad. A bad action or law can be perfectly constitutional, and a good action or law can be perfectly unconstitutional.
Portland and other “sanctuary cities” have an obligation to protect the entire union from illegal immigration. Once in, they can spread to the entire union. It is like a leaking ship, without watertight bulkheads. That they don’t care to protect the rest of us suddenly makes it our business, so the use of ICE and federal troops is perfectly constitutional for the use of federal power.
But neither is that a satisfactory solution. We are on the cusp of a true civil war, one that has quite possibly been patiently orchestrated by human and demonic forces. All lovers of our country need to know the stakes. This time, it is not geographic but ideological.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
Alaskans already know what the disruption of the supply chain could mean for us. We are vitally involved in what happens in the liberal PAC Northwest.
The alternative to force is what the northern Democrats wrote in their newspapers in 1861: “Erring sisters, depart in peace.” It is the advice that Jefferson, Quincy Adams and former president John Tyler, would have endorsed.
Peaceful secession is not a good solution, but then – as has often been suggested – it’s quite likely that New England in 1815 and the South in the 1860s, would have eventually come crawling back. Maybe not. But a union by force has already been a proven maxim by our history. The slaughter of 625,000 lives and the starvation of the innocent civilians in the South are its legacy.
God judges nations, as Jefferson rightly knew in the Declaration. Our collective and individual sins are measured. We are in a union that allows abortion, fatherless families, child mutilation, homosexuality, sex trafficking and drug abuse. If we ourselves don’t engage in that, our puny efforts to oppose them signals a toleration. Thus, our best weapons to preserve the union as citizens begins with our knees, and a repentance that is long overdue.
The views expressed here are those of the author.
14 Comments
Bring in ICE. They are more than welcome to clean the state of Alaska up.
I Agree, start with Anchorage.
“……..Peaceful secession is not a good solution………”
It isn’t even possible. Talk of it is counterproductive……….or the invitation for violent civil war. Undefined in the constitution, legal succession can only be theoretically possible with the reverse of the statehood process: (1) a vote of the state’s people, (2) an affirmative vote of Congress, (3) financial recompense between. the state and the U.S., (4) successful treaties between the U.S,. and the new potential nation, (5) SCOTUS review and blessing of the above, (6) and the signature of the POTUS.
Good luck with all that. Long before you get even close to the end of all that, somebody will start a war, because that’s what this rancor is all about to begin with.
Reggie, even when the word “secession” is identified, you mis-call it as “succession”. It is 3rd grade. If you don’t know the difference, you have a lot of homework to do.
But to answer your assertion — NO! SECESSION is not, is not, is not theoretically possible. It was roundly debated in 1787, and green-lighted not only by the refusal to agree to a FORCED union, but by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, confirmed by the 10th amendment, and also in his 1st Inaugural. Did you even read his speech?
The radical left as we call it is a symptom of mass psychosis. We as Americans should see each other as one people, one nation of one world of one Universe of one Creation. The political separation we have has been weaponized to divide the minds of the people and to keep them weak and fighting amongst themselves instead of focusing on what is truly important in life, which would be loving relationships with others of the community.
But that’s ok, the political divide makes for good business opportunities of which solutions for the problems created by it can be sold to the mindless.
Dumb and divided means easy money.
Bring it on, ICE! But hopefully WA, OR, CA Will form a new secular nation, Pacifica or Columbia and merge with Canada and New England.
By only supporting “abortion purists” for office, self-righteous groups “turn off” a large number of other-wise conservative voters who feel that abortion should be avoided if at all possible, but that it is a strictly a tough personal decision and should not be regulated by government. Thus what could be a victory for an otherwise conservative candidate ends up being a victory for a left leaning or even a radical Democrat who is against most all of the values these Christians and others believe in as even non-religious conservatives got their moral values from our basic Judaeo-Christian culture that the United States was founded on. Ranked choice voting makes this possibility even more probable.
It remains to be seen what the “Charley Kirk Legacy” will be. While he was a devoted Christian, he gained his stature and respect from a wide variety of people for his focus on Judaeo-Christion traditional values and dialog among others with different views and not on dogma.
Will the “Christian Purists” take his place and, by taking an absolute view of abortion as
a qualification for being elected, sabotage the Trump administration’s efforts to save our
nation and the very freedoms that allow Christians and other religious groups to exist?
Or will the young people who Charley influenced to return to more traditional family
values, supported by our cultural history, dominate in the future to save our country
regardless of their religion?
I should have added that each of our presidents have had to deal with the “real world” situations they are faced with. In that sense, Trump has shown how to make some progress in this crazy world where so many forces want to destroy our country so they can prevail.
Some Founding Fathers didn’t want the Union to be maintained by force, and Lincoln used force to maintain it. At the same time, it’s disingenuous to assert that the only reason Lincoln used force was to maintain the Union, as if rooting out slavery from our young nation had nothing to do with it. Lincoln recognized that our nation would not survive with both slave states and free, and that a proper understanding of the human person -which is the bedrock of any truly free and civilized society- cannot abide their use. Lincoln’s situation may’ve been a Catch-22, but if it is to be characterized as abandoning Founding documents -the counsels of men- for the sake of protecting the inherent, God-given rights of men, than I side with Lincoln. God’s laws cannot be circumscribed by men.
You make a strong historical case, but simply repeating Jefferson and the 10th Amendment doesn’t solve the reality we’re facing now. The issue isn’t whether secession was theoretically allowed in 1787 — it’s whether a modern, divided country can even function without tearing itself apart. We’re not debating parchment anymore; we’re watching cities defy federal law, borders collapse, and national trust disintegrate. That’s bigger than theory — it’s about survival.”
Lots of energy about secession, not so much about unification.
.
The essay seems to guide the narrative toward secession and civil war as if these were the only options, however drastic, to fix a problem which wasn’t well defined in the first place.
.
Robust debate’s been the fundament of American politics since there was an America, and the reason today that we still have an America.
.
If someone seems fearful or lacking skill to engage in robust debate, well …what would Charlie do?
.
But we’re not talking about robust debate, are we?
.
No, we’re talking about, as one writer put it: “…whether a modern, divided country can even function without tearing itself apart”.
.
The Ancient Ones remember events like the Battle of Athens in 1946, Long Hot Summer of 1967, race riots too numerous to recount, anti-war riots, immigration riots, etc., etc., etc., which, through the miracle of modern radio and television, impart continual, noisy, graphic impression that America was, and is, tearing herself apart.
.
But somehow, America survived, even thrives. What other country has a civil rights law like ours and a Justice Department dedicated to enforcing it?
.
Suppose today’s problem is not “De Facto secession by the Left”, but a justifiable perception that the non-Left may be adapting too slowly to a steep learning curve in order to correct orchestrated misbehavior?
.
Neighbor’s kid piddles on your carpet the second time, you do what, exactly? Kid has friends who do the same damned thing, and it’s okay in their culture, you do …what, exactly? They’re 7, 17, 77 years old, with large friends who have lawyers, guns, and money, you got a plan, law, timeline for dealing with this? There’s your steep learning curve, but that’s what Americans do, no?
.
So, the Radical Left’s de facto secession is indeed a threat which can’t be ignored, but should we not respond by figuring out how to improvise, adapt, and overcome in order to preserve our Union …since failure on our part is not an option?
Good points, all. Especially the last.
Are we at an Octavian inflection point, or is that impossible or not to be desired inside the Christian Era, with its full understanding of the human person?
What would it mean to “improvise, adapt, and overcome”?
A bit of clarity to help understand your first part?
.
“Improvise, adapt, and overcome” means just that. If current events, news media, and social media are accepted as reliable indications, Americans may be seeing their country rather desperately trying to function without tearing itself apart.
.
We’re in uncharted, unfamiliar, seemingly hostile territory, which we’ve never contemplated, much less seen before.
.
Google, AI, and every other substitute for critical thinking, and resourcefulness don’t have a solution, which means we have to figure out for ourselves how to fix a problem the likes of which a lot of Americans have never seen before.
.
But, we still have our instruction book with stuff like 1 Corinthians 13:13, Psalm 23. We still have our borders, language, culture, and that ineffacle American quality of resourcefulness.
.
So, what would it mean to “improvise, adapt, and overcome”? It means using what you and your mates have to overcome any obstacle in your way. Can’t be much more specific because obstacles are many and varied and keep coming.