Are we still sovereign over our lives, or now subjects?

If the current United States cannot be politically reformed within the current system, as the Tea Party hopes, can the South, or the South and West (red states), separate and form a new Confederation of States, leaving the current forced National entity?  

Your school teachers, college professors, journalists, and "mainstream" politicians will tell you: "No! The Civil War ended all of that.  It is dead and buried.  Get over it..." or words to that effect.


Does that make sense when the reasons to nullify, and when necessary, secede, are compelling and even urgent?  Of course not.

If the winning side in a war said the Moon was made of cheese instead of rock and dust, it wouldn't alter the facts.  Eventually, the truth will cause someone to stand up and declare that the moon is made of rock and dust.   

Since 1865, our public schools have been teaching us that the moon is made of cheese. 

A government that was oppressive and heavy handed to white Southerners since 1865 has now become oppressive and heavy handed to all tax payers (and the left should be very pleased with how equal we all have become:  we are all being economically raped by the federal government regardless of race, sex, creed, religion, or sexual orientation).  Every year our salaries remain the same, our dollar purchases less, and the government obligates us to more collective debt.

My ancestors came here to be left alone and take care of themselves.  They came because there was no lord or master to limit their opportunities.

I want no different for myself and my family.  

If the government, by their laws, wants to confiscate property and give it to other people who didn't earn it, the government is unjust.  If they consciously or unconsciously destroy any chance I have to be prosperous, are they not as bad, or worse than George III and Lord North?

I want my Natural rights to life, liberty, and property protected by my government.  That is the only proper mandate that government has, if the government is truly "of the people, by the people, and for the people." (Lying bastard Lincoln) 

If the government doesn't protect those rights, of what purpose is government?

Are we free or aren't we? Do we rule, as per our Founders rhetoric, or have we become slaves of an oligarchy?
 

The cynical would contend that the people have always been subjects in this country, and that our so-called sovereignty has always been an illusion.  

This may be true, but in addressing the situation that confronts our generation, I hold that we have become slaves.  

We are slaves to those who tax us, 

We are slaves to those individuals in this country to whom the nanny state caters (Giving charity is voluntary individual choice vs. supporting welfare by confiscated wealth) 

We are slaves to those industries and private businesses subsidized by government funds and financial slight of hand.  

We are slaves to the whims of a nonrepresentative unconstitutional national legislature ("Are you serious? Are you serious?").

We are slaves to the Federal Reserve, that steals and counterfeits our wealth and our children's inheritance with impunity.

We are slaves to unimaginable unauthorized collective debt incurred by our National government.

So now must fall back on the words of Thomas Jefferson, for we have no other choice:

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Hosni Mubarak feels the double edged sword of the Internet in Egypt

Any repressive regime is damned if they have the internet, and damned if they don't...

Egypt cuts off the Internet Service Provider Noor during the Revolution...too late...

"So why did Hosni Mubarak give up on the government’s total information blackout? The answer should be a lesson for other Internet-unfriendly regimes: 


In any modern country, argues Lucie Morillon, the head of the Internet desk for Reporters Without Borders, (RSF) keeping millions of people offline simply isn’t a sustainable approach to quelling dissent. “There are very few countries in the worlds that can be cut off from the world’s economy for this long,” she says.


...Ultimately Egypt faces the same problem as any repressive regime in the digital era, one that University of Maryland Sociology professor Zeynep Tufekci calls the “Dictator’s Dilemma.” 


As she summarizes it, 'If they allow Internet to spread within the country, it poses a threat to their regime. If they don’t, they are cut off from the world–economically and socially.'"


From Forbes magazine blog, read on.

Tor use in Egypt during the last week, latest from Tor Blog

Tor use in Egypt spikes at onset of revolution...

"We're glad that the Internet Service Providers in Egypt are announcing their routes to the world and have rejoined the Internet. We are concerned because it is possible that traffic crossing the Egyptian border is being recorded and possibly saved for future use. Correctly using Tor to and from Egyptian destinations will keep your traffic anonymous.
Tor separates who you are from where you are going on the Internet. It's up to you, the user, to choose where you share your personal information. Currently, we do not try very hard to hide that you are using Tor. In the past few years, we haven't needed to hide. Tor looks like an SSL connection on the wire. Your local ISP, if they are very clever, could map your current connections from your assigned IP address to the list of public Tor relays. This would only tell them you are using Tor, not where you are going on the Internet. We do offer bridge relays, which are semi-public relays published in a few selective ways. By using bridges, your ISP is unlikely to figure out you are using Tor. We need thousands more bridges, please join the Tor network to help others.
Many years ago, we theorized this arms race could happen. Recent events have turned theory into reality. We are working on improvements to make it much more difficult to detect Tor usage. These methods include normalization of our TLS usage and tunneling Tor through other protocols, such as XMPP, HTTPS, and HTTP.
Thanks to some funding from Avaaz, we've also begun experimenting with ways to make Tor perform better on satellite and mesh networks. We have Tor working well on mobile phone 3G and 4G connections. Tor over VSAT and BGAN connections does work, however it needs more research into how to better handle the variable latencies and varying available bandwidth on such connections. The improvements that result from this research will benefit those with little to no Internet access, whether due to political unrest, natural disasters, or remote locations, who nonetheless seek to keep their online activities safe."


From the Tor Project Blog

How the South "rationalizes" Secession, it's "Revolution"

In an article entitled: "How the South rationalizes secession" on Salon.com, Prof. Glenn LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University has an agenda to smear any defender of the Southern perspective in regards to the reasons for Secession in 1860.  He does this through a number of historical errors and omissions.


"In any event, Southern secessionists believed that it did, so they came to see themselves as conservatives, not revolutionaries. This position entrapped them in the contradiction of wanting to overthrow the government of the United States while also remaining under the protection of the Constitution. As a result, Southern justifications of the constitutionality of secession and their own conservatism became almost surreal. "


LaFantasie calls Jefferson Davis "One of America’s worst traitors, a man who had committed or condoned far worse acts against his country than Benedict Arnold,..."
and:  "...Until his death in 1889, he found a stronger voice in passionately defending the right of secession and extolling the nobility of the Lost Cause. He became, like so many of his fellow Confederates, an unreconstructed rebel. As one might expect, he never believed that he had committed a single traitorous act; in fact, he boldly, even arrogantly, affirmed that every one of his actions was legal and constitutional."


He asks:  "How can anyone possibly be a patriot by calling for the destruction of the country one professes to love and honor?"


Prof. LaFantasie concludes thus:  "In pledging allegiance to the flag, Americans vow to uphold "one nation, indivisible." For Lincoln, the issue was straightforward. Secession was revolution. Secession was treason. There still should be no doubt about that, especially as we ponder the meaning of the 150th anniversary of South Carolina’s ignominious -- and traitorous -- secession from the Union."

Let's start off with the basics here.  We need to define our terms, something Professor LaFantasie doesn't bother to do:

rationalize 

1803, "to explain, to make reasonable," from rational + -ize.

secession 

1530s, from L. secessionem (nom. secessio), from pp. stem of secedere "secede," from se- "apart" (see secret) + cedere "to go" (see cede). Originally in a Roman historical context, "temporary migration of plebeians from the city to compel patricians to address their grievances;" modern use in reference to religious or political unions dates from 1650s.

revolution 

late 14c., originally of celestial bodies, from O.Fr. revolution, from L.L. revolutionem (nom. revolutio) "a revolving," from L. revolutus, pp. of revolvere "turn, roll back"

insurrection 

mid-15c., from M.Fr. insurrection, from L. insurrectionem (nom. insurrectio) "a rising up," from insurrectus, pp. of insurgere "to rise up"

treason 


early 13c., from Anglo-Fr. treson, from O.Fr. traison (11c.; Fr. trahison), from L. traditionem (nom. traditio) "a handing over, delivery, surrender" (see tradition). O.Fr. form influenced by the verb trair "betray." In old English law, high treason is violation by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the state

Please forgive me, Professor LaFantasie, but I have doubts about secession representing treason.


The Texas v. White case used to demonstrate the illegality of secession is silly, because it was written after the fact to justify the war by one of the former members of Lincoln's cabinet.  


Let me counter the quote "It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination" with the following inconvenient points:  The federal government is the servant of the people, who are sovereign, and of the States, which created the federal government and gave it specific enumerated powers.  The right of the government to rule derives from the consent of the governed.  The voluntary consent of the governed.  Otherwise you cannot claim that the United States is a free country.


Moreover: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

To continue:


Using the different etymological definitions listed above, there are many rationalizations for secession.  The rationalizations for secession were and are reasonable and Constitutional.  The Southern States did want a Revolution in the original sense of that word.  That is to say, they wanted to come full circle back to States Rights as it was understood by the ratifying conventions of the several States in 1787-1788. The federalist proponents of the Constitution recognized that if powers were not specifically enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the powers were reserved to the States and the people of the States.  The understanding of the Southern States ratifying conventions was that of implicit recognition of the right of a Slave State to maintain it's slaves and set its own laws regarding slavery and slave ownership without Federal interference.


This is what is meant by the claims that secession is both conservative and revolutionary. 


You can go on about the immorality of Slavery and the need for Abolition all you like.  If you utilize the Congress and Federal judiciary to effect changes that affect the Southern States in particular on these issues then you have crossed a constitutional line.


As far as Professor LaFantasie's claims that [the Confederate States were] "taking up of arms against the United States":  Does the professor propose that the Confederate States government was planning a march on Washington DC to overthrow the United States government (at the time of secession)?


Secession was separation and withdrawal from the Union.  It was not an internal revolt or insurrection.  Militias were raised at the time because the States were withdrawing from the Union and no longer had the US Army or Navy for defense.  Moreover the Southern States had reason to fear the Lincoln government and the remaining States in the Union based upon the rhetoric from the Executive Branch and the northern press at the time.


To claim treason, you must prove that individuals were working to overthrow their government (by the specific definition of Treason in the Constitution).  In the case of secession of the Southern States in 1860-1861, you have State conventions of elected representatives of the people of the individual states voting to withdraw from the Union.  The Union was formed on a voluntary basis in 1788, and was being undone on a voluntary basis in 1860-61.  That is, this was a legal Constitutional process of withdrawal;  There is no call for marches on Washington or the overthrow of Lincoln, etc.,.  The Confederate States increased in number when Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the insurrection [sic], pushing the border States out of the Union.


Is it not clear to a reasonable person that the United States could continue to exist as an independent nation with Abraham Lincoln as its president, without the seceding states, just as the 11 states of the United States existed without the States of Rhode Island or North Carolina after the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 to 1789?


The South's withdrawal from the United States cannot be logically likened to trying to destroy the United States.  It is a change from the past, to be sure, but both countries could have coexisted and benefited from commerce and mutual defense.


The pledge of allegience that LaFantasie refers to in his conclusion was written by a socialist utopian in the 1890's.  This was long after the unsatisfactory conclusion of the War to Prevent Southern Independence, long after the death of the voluntary Republic.  The pledge was written to indoctrinate children to a new way of thinking about their "nation," as the true history of the United States was buried.

Regarding the Professor's continued use of the terms Revolution and Treason, I defer to Inigo Montoya:





Regarding "How can anyone possibly be a patriot by calling for the destruction of the country one professes to love and honor?"  


I would say that equating one's government to one's country is not legitimate.  The country, in my opinion, is composed of it's people, not it's government.  Too often the people in government have an agenda which increases their own power at the expense of the productive members of that country. 

The tipping point for Revolution

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.

• W. Somerset Maugham, in Strictly Personal, ch. 31 (1941)

The tipping point will come when:


1.  A critical mass of the American people realize they're screwed financially, and suffering is all they have to look forward to.   Their salaries contract, each dollar saved or earned buys less. Their retirement accounts, if they have them at all, are halved.   Every day more of us know this is true...


And,


2.  For every tax dollar paid there is no net benefit--they pay for debts incurred by others, against the taxpayer's will. Government services are scaled back or end altogether.  Every day more of us know this is true...


And,


3.  Enough people realize that their financial ruin has largely to mostly been secondary to the central bankers and the government in which they had so much faith...this will be the contribution of the Austrian School of economics plus the free Internet.  Every day more of us know that this is true...


My awareness of my economic peril is what turned me from a neocon into a libertarian and continues to turn me into whatever I am becoming...I evolve as the circumstances dictate.

Quote of the Day 12/29

Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit and security of the people, nation or community; whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, indefeasible right, to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public Weal.

George Mason

Violent revolution soon?

Maybe.

A columnist at Breitbart's site Big Peace, while showing Neocon colors, has seen beyond the veil cast by the mainstream media to the mood of the American people (at least the Constitutional conservative element of the people).

The American people cherish the Freedom to live their own lives without interference by the government.  That treasured and Constitutionally protected Natural Right has driven immigrants to risk life and limb to cross the oceans from every nation on the planet just to live here.  The fight for personal liberty fired the American soul in the Revolution, the Texans in their secession from Mexico, and the Confederate States in their secession from the United States.  It drove those people who braved the frontiers of America throughout our history.

This libertarian impulse in Americans led to the popularity of Goldwater, the election of Reagan, the victory of the Republicans in the 1994 election (Contract with America election).  It drives the Tea Party now.

Almost every American has a libertarian living inside them, whether they are a social justice driven liberal or a neoconservative Bush doctrine supporter.  They may or not be conscious of it.  I think they are more conscious of it when the "other side" is in power, and their status quo is threatened. Right or Left, they do not want to be told what to think, what to buy, where to live, and they dont appreciate being ignored by their representatives in Congress.

Anyone reading these words is probably aware that Congress' latest approval rating is 13%.  Most of us grew up believing that the police and the government had our best interests at heart.  We know now that either by willful deceit or gross incompetence of our leaders, our birthright and that of our children is betrayed.  Our economy is destroyed and wont get better.  More and more wealth is confiscated through monetary policy and outright taxation.

Talk about taxation without representation:  Try false representatives enslaving the populace with debt that can never be repaid.

The American people are really really pissed off.

I talk to people at work every day, "testing the waters" of antigovernment feelings amongst my colleagues.  I was surprised at how angry they are.  It gives me hope that they are thinking about this crisis, and are thinking as I do.

At my job, we are all of a middling sort.  We are middle class, decently educated, and know that our federal government crossed a red line within the past several years.

I have thought about it a lot, but I still am not sure what will get Americans into the streets for either a sustained protest in front of Congress, like the planned Guardians of Liberty starting January 21, 2011, or like what we have seen in Europe, with destructive violence.

Our 18th Century Revolution was a conservative revolution, when the people felt that the King and Parliament had strayed from the Bill of Rights of 1689.  The people sought to maintain law and order and control potential mob violence through the local communities through the Committees of Safety and Committees of Correspondence.

We want to get rid of the looters and their corporate cronies, but none of us want to lose the sense of law and order that we see day to day, and none of us want the potential chaos seen in a violent mob-based revolution.

What I suggest to Constitutional conservatives is the following:  a planned escalation of resistance to tyranny.  Protests and voting will only go so far when Congress is no longer bound by the language and original intent of the Constitution.   That has been tried, and those that still have faith in the system will continue to vote and protest.

Our physical presence in Washington (a constant in their face vocal presence) is one early tactic to try.  A second tactic would be a large scale(10's or 100's of thousands of people) tax protest.  The first year withhold a certain percent of what is owed, the next year a larger percentage, and so on.

As Larry Gomez (Budd's boss in the strip joint) said in Kill Bill Vol. 2:  "Fuckin' with your cash is the only thing you kids seem to understand!"

Violent resistance should be reserved for reacting to a government attempt to disarm the population, or if there is a crackdown on freedom of speech, freedom of the internet, or if constitutional conservative leaders are arrested or assassinated.

Violence in the defense of personal liberty is a moral obligation to one's self.

Nothing says "I'm serious," though, like a match 175 grain .308...

The more centrally organized a resistance is, the easier it would be for the government to take it down.  The Tea Party is large and spontaneous, and has some "leaders" but no leaders who are revolutionary leaders, at least as far as I perceive.  The passion of the betrayed American public has to be, and will be, harnessed in any near future Revolution.

Revolution.

I have read several articles in the media this week, some through Drudge, and some linked by the blogs I like to read.  The ones that inspired this post are here, here, and here.

Since last year, when Gerald Celente predicted the Second American Revolution, I have been waiting to see that prediction play out. I have not been displeased. I have seen success or near success of candidates running on platforms of states rights, interposition, and nullification. I have seen those terms and concepts brought back into near-common usage in the blogosphere and sometimes in the mainstream media. I have enjoyed watching the Obama inspired run on guns and the flood of applications for concealed carry permits around the country. I read with interest each time a citizen aware of his constitutional rights refuses to cooperate with the TSA or with a border control checkpoint set up in the middle of Texas (not anywhere near the border). I love and gladly joined the Oathkeepers organization.

I was grateful to read of bricks being through the windows of Democratic offices after the Looters voted to pass Obamacare. I applaud the stand being taken by those who consider themselves three percenters.

Those of us who stand against strong central government authority believe that a second American Revolution, as in the definition of a Revolution,is a returning to the starting point of the Republic. It must be a return to not only the original intent of the founders of the Republic, but to the Jeffersonian original intent.  The only mandate of government is to protect an individual's life and their property.   If you share this goal, you may be uncertain what one person can do, or what you in particular should do.  Each person has to judge for himself what his tipping point is.  At what point do I change from passive to active?

I believe in proactive self defense and passive resistance to what has become onerous and unreasonable government authority. Above all, don't give the government an excuse to come down on you. You dont give the TSA guy lip when you are standing in line at the airport with your wife and kids.  That is a lose-lose situation.  If you and four buddies have the opportunity to tar and feather an IRS man, then run him out of town on a rail, without revealing your identities, maybe you got something there.

The government is, by definition, the essence of Statism, and since the Congress and the Executive branch of the government now openly defy their Constitutional Oath, it is up to each of us to do what we can to try to preserve what we believe to be our birthright.

What does this mean practically? First of all, we are seeing in elements of the Tea Party movement, the effort of like minded people to alter the status quo through the soap box and the ballot box.  I personally have little faith in this process, since replacing a Democratic Dark Statist with a Republican Lite Statist just to teach those darn Democrats who is boss is an exercise in futility.  Witness the progression of American politics from one progressive to another progressive administration, each increasing the power of the executive, increasing their use of executive orders, each administration pushing Congress to find more individual rights to suspend (all in the guise of protecting you from a foreign menace --

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy--James Madison)  Secondly, there are passive ways of resisting the federal government, such as avoiding military service, avoiding employment in federal jobs or really any positions that originate from tax dollars (read: someone else's productivity pays your income, for there is no other way to think of what any government job is), asserting your constitutional rights at traffic stops, at border crossings, in dealings with any government representative, from IRS to census workers.

Third, and last, there is physical resistance.  That is, physical force responding to physical force.  Government is, by definition, a "legal" monopoly on force.  Taxes, conscription, court orders and the like, are enforced ultimately at the point of a gun.  One can respond with force, or more passively like Hank Rearden at his trial for selling Rearden metal to a colleague in violation of a federal directive in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged:

 One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges.

"You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defence," he announced. Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered:
"I have no defence."
"Do you --" The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"What?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."
"I do not recognise my action as a crime."
"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal."
"I do not recognise your right to control the sale of my Metal."
"Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?"
"No. I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly."

He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretence which all those people played for one another's benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.
"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defence is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
"But, Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself."
"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it." "Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."
"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to e their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."

One can willfully cross the line from law abiding citizen to felon when you reach the point that the laws passed are unreasonable, unconstitutional, and are essentially a threat to your life and property.  When in a situation where you are confronted by the legal system that backs up unconstitutional seizures of personal property or enforces nonvoluntary labor, make sure you don't sanction their act or cooperate with their system by trying to defend yourself.  You have become a political prisoner for defending your person or property.  Your arguments in their courtroom are irrelevant to them.  Just try to communicate with the people, tell your story to someone you know will get it out to the internet.  

One can paint grafitti on federal signs or let the air out of the tires of federal vehicles, or put a brick through the congressman's window.  I dont necessarily agree with each of these things, I am simply listing options.  Whatever you think you must do, make sure that there is some gain to be had by committing the act.  If there is no tangible gain, dont stick your neck out just because you feel you cant sit still any more.

As far as responding to force with force, it has to be under the right circumstances.  It cannot be one guy committing suicide by federal cop, or the group equivalent thereof.  It must be in response to obvious violations of personal physical rights or violations of private property by federal officials, particularly if the violations are occurring because of a person's political beliefs.  Force should be initiated when there is a reasonable expectation of piecemeal and compartmentalized victory.  Maintain your anonymity whenever possible so that you can fight the next day as well.

The hot phase of a Second American Revolution would have to be a war of attrition and noncompliance.  We, I would insist, should never initiate a hot war against the US government. That is, no large coordinated attack should initiate the conflict.  That was the mistake of Fort Sumter, with due respect to Southern honor, because the South firing on the Federal fort could be successfully spun in the northern press to the detriment of the Secessionist cause (of course I have the benefit of hindsight, and live in the world of the Yankee, which is without honor). Firing on Fort Sumter enabled Lincoln to raise his army of invasion.  If the federals had fired first on the South Carolinians because they were laying nonviolent siege to the Fort, and the Southern States had just continued to withhold their tax/tariff payments to the federal government, if they had stopped participating in the federal government and withdrew their representatives, and if they had simply repulsed any incursion into the territory of a seceding state with the least force necessary to accomplish the task, and had not allowed themselves to be drawn into major battles and risk the body of their army, the South would have outlasted the North.  They would have had a much better chance at succeeding in the goal of "to be let alone" as President Jeff Davis had wanted.

In our day, we must absorb these lessons, and the lessons of other successful insurgencies.  A people that both passively and actively resists an occupier, bleeding the occupier whenever it is practical, will eventually render the occupier anemic and unable to continue initiating force.  It would be long and painful, but what is the alternative?

-------------------------------------

One major problem:  if like minded people wanted to coordinate their activities, and wanted to avoid moles and false flag operations by the feds, and wanted to have safe communication such as PGP protected forums online, does anyone have any ideas how that could be accomplished?  Once set up, how to safely recruit without bringing in agents of the government?