The following is a reader submission. It’s always a joy to get a well written and well-reasoned article from those in our audience, and this is no exception. I hope you will enjoy it, and I hope (if you are so inclined) to pen your own pieces for publishing on our site, as well! (Click here.)
– Ryan Thorson
Texian Partisan, Editor
Texans who promote secession to their fellow Texans are often rebuked with a counterargument commonly held among skeptics of independence. These doubters view calls for political separation as counterproductive- that any reform movement can only be successful if it directly targets the US Government through a unified front of all American citizens. Outright secession is often dismissed as unnecessarily radical and merely a back door way for The US Regime or the stealth, controlling powers-that-be to “divide and conquer.” Secession is seen as an unwise action because it weakens a potential united front against an all controlling power.
What they may not realize is that this accurately perceived “divide” already exists, independent of the controlling powers. There are those who are inclined towards liberty (or at least more liberty than they presently have) and those satisfied with living submissively, or with a preference towards mastery (being a ruler). Secession allows a political separation of these differing camps, so that their contrasting beliefs no longer create constant conflict. If the division in ideology becomes intolerable for all sides, the only rational response for both groups is separation.
Being “conquered” only occurs when any side submits to the others (and suffers accordingly), or a tyrannical dictatorship forcibly unites all camps into one political collective- a forced integration of ideological opposites. Only the dictatorial class and its cronies benefits from such an arrangement. Meanwhile, the opposing sides constantly fight over who is favored by the dictatorial class. This is where the “conquering” occurs. A group is conquered when it deems it necessary to submit to a ruling power for survival while battling other groups for control of that ruling power. Only one group wins. Separation avoids such an unending, non-productive waste of time and resources.
Secession creates a decentralization of power which weakens, not strengthens, the central controlling power. After all, it now has fewer subjects under its command. It has fewer groups willing to submit. The seceding groups no longer must battle each other for power. Their previous central controlling power is no longer viewed as legitimate or relevant.
United We Fall, Divided We Stand.
The opposite view offers nothing but continued enslavement and discord. “United” means unending, unnecessary conflict just to obtain favor from a distant ruler. “Divided” means a separation and creation of a ruling entity, smaller and (hopefully) more responsive than the previous one. United means continued, authoritative dictates from an untouchable overseer. Divided means a new opportunity for self-determination, making decisions with those who most likely share your ideological and cultural biases.
United and chained or divided and independent. Which makes more sense to you?
Think about it- Why do you need a “US?”
Secession, anyone? Or are you terrified of freedom?