Communist Chinese government opposes the concept and of course the right of secession, just as the federal government does in the United States today, just as Great Britain did in 1776. In a recently released government report, known as, White Paper, the Chinese government expressed its policy on censuring internet use against those Chinese citizens who spread “contents subverting state power, undermining national unity, infringing upon national honor and interests, inciting ethnic hatred and secession.” Is there any wonder why such a communist government opposes the idea of secession, independence and self-government and categorizes such a proposal as an “incitement against national unity”?
Totalitarian and autocratic governments always oppose, by force of the sword and by the rule of their law, any effort which diminishes their power, control, resources and tax base. Such a government needs all of the people, property, assets and money it can use to sustain its pyramidal operation of bureaucracy, police and military. It must have a way to pay for its nation-building endeavor in creating the nirvana of being untouchable and unreachable by the people. It is a vicious trap and cycle of enslavement of the people, which can hardly be broken except through the natural law remedy of secession. For this reason, totalitarian and autocratic governments always oppose secession. So, why does the U.S. federal government oppose secession? After all, it supports the secession of states from unions in foreign countries (e.g. Yugoslavia), as well as the secession of parts of society who desire to secede from even a consolidated foreign nation (e.g. Sudan, Pakistan).
We are told that the United States must absolutely remain in what has grown from a union of thirteen states of 3.5 million people, in a relatively small geographical area on the eastern sea-board of America, composed almost entirely of agrarian, Christian, self-governing, pre-Industrial-age communities to what is now a union of fifty states of some 400 million people across and even beyond an entire continent, composed of an assortment of sparse agrarian, urban and highly-concentrated and –populated cities, with religious, moral and philosophical kaleidoscope diversity, with illegal-alien-filled, non-self-governing, government-dependent, post-Industrial-age communities. We are told that the U.S. Constitution demands this union; that this union is what the founding fathers envisioned; that this is freedom and this is what protects freedom. I say, they are crazy, manipulative, ignorant or worse. Their position is the means by which an encroaching government gains a stronghold in society and politics and becomes virtually impenetrable through normal means.
The Chinese government claims secession is wrong because it opposes “national unity.” Hitler’s Germany declared the same thing. The U.S. federal government and others who blindly support forced union say the same thing. So, what is “national unity”? At what price is it purchased? How is this unity accomplished? How is it maintained? Is it natural to conceive that this unity would last forever? And is national unity a matter of force or a matter of choice?
Despite those who advocate for the ancient-like, hereditary-right-to-rule notions of forced union, national unity can only be achieved on a large scale where self-government permeates local and state communities and where the people at large share such similarities morally, socially and politically as to allow cohesiveness of purpose through conscience choice, not brute force. Author and historian, Ramsay Muir, acknowledges this natural and necessary component to maintain a free society and government, stating:
“When a community is divided by deep and irreconcilable antipathies…discussion becomes futile and agreement impossible, and the attempt at self-government leads only to anarchy…In the great modern state unity of sentiment is indeed a hard thing to create. It has, in fact, been created only be one force—by what we call the national spirit….[T]he national spirit is indeed the only factor which has yet been discovered that can make self-government as real a thing in the large state as it was in the little city-state.”
So, what is “national spirit”? Naturally, it consists of such required similarities as to morally unite a people in purpose and direction, the reasons for which societies join together. In America, it has to be defined at first by the principles announced in the Declaration of Independence, which in turn, created the principles of voluntary union. That document explains that there is in fact a Creator God; that man is created by God; that God created natural laws which comprise the Supreme law of the Universe; that God is the sole determiner for the rectitude of our intentions; that man has the right to govern himself; that certain societies gather together for a certain purpose; that man inherently possesses God-given, immutable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; that it is the individual responsibility of man to use his rights for his own happiness and provision; that governments are instituted by society for the limited purpose of securing rights; that no government has a right beyond what a body-politic consents to; that a body-politic can alter or abolish its government upon its will and determination. From the very starting point of the analysis, there is no such thing as one national spirit in the United States.
There are in fact numerous, opposing spirits throughout these vast territories, and it is impossible to force a unified national spirit down those people’s throats. What compounds the problem of national spirit and unity in the U.S. even more is that the unity of America is supposed to circle around the camp of the U.S. Constitution and its foundational principles. The U.S. Constitution’s purpose is not to create the unity of the people. It presupposes a pre-existing unity of the people. That the American people would unite together under the fundamental truths derived from human nature, which formed the U.S. Constitution, when there is no unity of sentiment regarding those fundamentals, is impossible, not even considering social, moral, commercial, and philosophical considerations. Not too surprisingly then, when “national unity” is observed from this perspective, the United States is actually opposed and divided in spirit.
How can there be a national spirit when most people are not even educated enough in the principles of 1776 to 1787? “Where these qualities [of complete education] are lacking, the institution of the forms of self-government must lead either to anarchy, or to the enthronement of unscrupulous intriguers who play upon the ignorance of the voters and their lack of political intelligence.”
The U.S. Constitution was formed and ratified on the presumption that certain fundamental elements of society and government were commonly shared by all of the States. So what does that do to our union which purportedly exists on the basis diversity? You think that that force is doing the people well? To the utter contrary, you are festering wounds that are not able to heal; you are deepening the tensions in people’s hearts; you are causing the spirits of people to become more acrimoniously divided. In effect, you are ruining this country.
As society expands its political scope and states are added to a union, the national unity and spirit naturally and inevitably becomes divided. Even during the 1780s, when the people of the thirteen states looked like identical multiple-birth siblings compared to the makeup of the States today, there existed a common trepidation of forming a single union under the U.S. Constitution given the diversity that existed at that time. Patrick Henry, the father of the Spirit of 1776, believed that the U.S. Constitution would become an “instanc[e] of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few.” Many believed that the union of those thirteen states would be far too big for freedom to be maintained and that as such, three or four confederacy unions should be formed instead. The only reason one union was formed in spite of those concerns was because of the presumed similarities of the people, which are now gone. G.W. Bush admitted this in 2001: “Sometimes [America’s] differences run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country.” Indeed.
In truth, the more complex and diverse society becomes, the more decentralized the government should be. To maintain freedom, this is a natural law. Eric Johnston, former president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, pointed out:
“Those who argue that the complexity of modern life makes such concentration [of power in the federal government] necessary are on the wrong track. The contrary is true. The more complicated and varied our life, the less logic there is in setting up over-all authorities who cannot possibly cope with the endless variants of national problems.”
As we have seen in America over the past century, this logic has been rejected and “the national spirit does not exist [anymore]…[Consequently,] self-government in any real sense cannot exist; and if its institutions are established, their effect will either be nullified by the CLASH OF CONFLICTING AND IRRECONCILABLE FACTIONS…or they will afford to the better organized master-race the means of imposing its ruthless dominion upon its recalcitrant subjects.” This “clash of conflicting and irreconcilable factions” was foretold by those who contested ratification of the U.S. Constitution (the realities of such prophecies we observe and experience today):
“In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, THERE WILL BE A CONSTANT CLASHING OF OPINIONS; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving, against those of the other. This will…prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good.”
Like communist China, the federal government rejects the freedom of true self-government and self-determination. They declare that the matter of secession has been “settled by the Civil War,” yet they continually aid foreign states in their efforts of secession. Hypocritically so, what they “grant” to foreign citizens, they deny to American citizens. The federal government insists that the game of freedom be played in their stadium, with their referees, under their rules, with their playbooks, with all participants mandatorily required to pay their perpetual fees to enter the game, with threats of corporeal punishment if you fail to comply or determine to play in another stadium altogether. They encourage as much clashing of conflicts between the parties involved, because they know that they largely control the channels of thought among the masses of people and ultimately determine the outcome of the winner anyway.
Stupidly so, some people who claim to love freedom in America criticize those who advocate for secession and who propose that it be discussed in a serious and deliberate manner. They say, “Now is not the time to be talking about such drastic measures, so shut up!” What utter nonsense! That is exactly what the not-so-virtuous communist Chinese government says as well to its not-so-free citizens in the name of the patriotic-sounding cliché, “national unity.” That the federal government does not want us talking about secession should give us a good indication of just how successful and effective it would be.
As long as the people are hush, hush about real methods of obtaining real freedom for now and for our posterity, slavery’s cement only dries harder and faster, requiring those who would be free from its smothering grip to break loose with much more draconian means. Such an approach to preserving freedom and self-government pushes men in a corner; requires men to resort to pure brute force to determine which side takes the victory and spoil; and reduces societies to animalistic approaches.
“Only by [self-government’s] victory can the [United States] be freed from the poisonous influence of the Doctrine of Power.” But as long as the people comply with the view of the United States federal government and Communist Chinese government concerning secession, Brute Power will grow stronger and live on, as will the apple of his eye: Utter Slavery.
 In reality, it could have been only nine states, as only nine states were needed to ratify the U.S. Constitution.
 “[We are called upon to decide whether] societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 1 (emphasis added).
 Ramsay Muir, National Self-Government, (New York, NY, Henry, Holt and Co., 1918), 8-9 (emphasis added).
 National Self-Government, 7-8.
 “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” John Jay, Federalist Paper 2 (emphasis added).
 William Wirt, The Life and Character of Patrick Henry, (New York, NY, Derby & Jackson, 1857; reprint by Home School Legal Defense Assoc., Purceville, VA, 1998), 291.
 “[W]e must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper (FP) 1. “[It is] suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one.” John Jay, FP 2. “[The States should be] divided into several confederacies… The ideas of men who speculate upon the dismemberment of the empire seem generally turned toward three confederacies.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 13. “[There are] advocates for three or four confederacies.” John Jay, FP 5.
 George W. Bush, “Text of Bush’s Inaugural Speech,” Associated Press, January 20, 2001.
 Eric Johnston, America Unlimited, (Garden City, NY, Doubleday, Doran and Company, Inc., 1944), 84.
 National Self-Government, 9 (emphasis added).
 Brutus and Ralph Ketcham, ed., The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, (New York: Signet Classic, 2003), 277 (emphasis added).
 “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” Justice Scalia in a letter written to a screenwriter. Scalia: “There Is No Right to Secede” found at http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/02/scalia-there-is-no-right-to-secede.html.
 National Self-Government, 282.