The Freeman State

Is this for real?

Yes.  Unlike a lot of mock secession movements out there, we actually want separation from the United States.

So you hate America?

That's a loaded question.  When you say "America," do you mean the people, the culture, the government, ... ?

Hate implies an irrational emotional response towards something.  What we are critical of are the specific policies enacted and carried out by a choice few individuals within the United States government against its own people and those living in other countries.  We don't hate the land or its culture or its people.  We are its people!  But enough is enough.

Why call yourselves "The Freeman State"?

In law, there are only three statuses one may hold: slave, bonded, or freeman. 

Most people have an intuitive understanding of what slavery is, so let's not dwell on that one.  "Bonded" means you voluntary consent to servitude, such as an employee or a public official who has certain restrictions placed on him or her.  It also refers to people who are not legally free to conduct their own affairs (such as minors, wards, and the mentally incompetent). 

Since we are neither slaves, nor bonded to the State - or at least no longer wish to be - that leaves only the status of "freemen."

I heard Freemen are terrorists. Are you guys a terrorist organization?

The United States government will certainly try to claim that we are; but rather than get embroiled in that technical bullshit, we find it's easier just to break off and do our own thing by creating a new independent country where they can't touch us (at least not without starting a war). 

Why should we waste our efforts trying to convince a bunch of psychopaths and hypocrites what the rules are when they clearly don't care what the rules are and will actively break them even if we're correct?

A terrorist is defined as one who uses violence to induce fear to compel a political agenda.  Towards that end, it's hard to imagine a greater terrorist organization than the United States government.  We're certainly not the ones setting up military bases around the world, getting involved in the local affairs of sovereign nations, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, wracking up trillions of dollars in debt and enslaving future generations to pay for it!

That alone should be reason for anyone to want to distance themselves as much as possible from the United States government and those are certainly among our reasons for starting this movement.

The United States will likely send their economic hitmen, and their jackals via the CIA and FBI to try to degrade our efforts and make us look violent; but we do not condone the use of violence to achieve our political ends.  In fact, we openly denounce the use of violence for anything but defense, and we denounce anyone that resorts to such measures. 

That also includes anyone claiming to be a Freeman.  Calling yourself something doesn't make it so.  It's by your actions that you will be known!  Such violence only hurts our cause and aids our enemies.

So you want to secede from the Union?

Well, secession is only part of our goal.  It's the Plan B, if you will.  Plan A is to reform it and bring it back to its original Constitutional authority, with maybe a few more guarantees that this kind of tyranny won't happen again in the future.  Hence our motto: "succeed or secede."

Though the people of this country can't even do simple things that most everyone agrees are necessary, such as ending the Federal Reserve, repealing the 16th Amendment, and stopping all foreign military conflicts; so secession seems the more likely solution.

What's so bad about the United States that you'd resort to such extreme measures?

I'm going to assume you have been asleep at the wheel for the better part of your life and haven't really been paying attention to what's been going on in the world around you.  Either that or you just don't know enough about history, economics, and politics to put two and two together.  That's ok, we've prepared for that!

You can start by checking out our slideshow on the Declaration of Independence to see some of the awful things the United States government does - things our Founding Fathers thought were reason enough to secede from England and form their own government.  If that's not enough, you can also check out our Claim of Right and the numerous attrocities listed therein.

What are your qualifications to form this movement?

The American Revolution began as an idea in the minds of two men: John Handcock and Samuel Adams, who had the radical notion of opposing unfair taxation and ejecting British troops from the colonies.  Sam Adams was a brewer by trade, and John Handcock a shipper (later a smuggler).  Such a pairing would be as mismatched as Jack Sparrow and Will Turner, yet those are the men that sowed the seeds of liberty and helped them to grow on this continent.

The Continental Congress began when these two men decided to establish a system of correspondence between the colonies to discuss their proposals.  Many others soon joined the ranks.

Ben Franklin was an inventor and scientist by trade; Benjamin Rush a doctor; Jefferson an architect; John Adams a lawyer who even helped defend the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre; and Washington was only a colonel in the British army before accepting position as General of the Continental Army.  Some of them had experience in local government positions; but hardly any of these men were of the highest military and political ranks that we'd typically expect of people chosen to lead a country.

So when you ask what are the qualifications of our leaders, just remember these guys and trust that it doesn't matter.  Leadership can come from all walks of life.

I have a question about ___.

If you have a question that isn't answered here, or on our FAQ about the Freeman Constitution, then feel free to post it to our Facebook page.  :)

Is secession legal?

Depends on what you mean by "legal."  The United States government has already made its position on the matter abundantly clear.  They don't see anything in the Constitution that allows for secession and so they claim it must be illegal because the Founders wanted a "perpetual union."

The Constitution may be the highest law on the land as far as the government is concerned, but there are laws older than and superior to the Constitution.

"Government must obey the law, for the law created government." ~ Legal Maxim.

The Continental Congress unanimously signed the Declaration of Indepedence, which states that, at certain times in history, "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." 

It also says, "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." 

More than their right, it says, "it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

It was this spirit of secession that gave us this country in the first place and it would seem a ridiculous notion to think that any American who had any respect for its founding document would now be opposed to those same principles.

So under Natural Law, secession is absolutely legal!  All governments are created by trust indentures (that's what a Constitution is), and any trust or contract that can be made can also be unmade.

But we don't expect the United States government to acknowledge such laws when it has a vested interest in defying them.  They need the tax farms in place in order to keep the National Debt afloat and they need to keep lying to us in order to avoid taking personal responsibility for the mass murder they've committed in our name and in the name of freedom (which is really a joke, since we're less free now than we were 100 years ago).

Or maybe we should ask King George if he thought it was legal for the colonists to secede from England.  I bet you he would have said, "No."

For a more complete picture of the history and legality of secession, we defer you to this article and to this video.

Didn't the Civil War answer the question of secession?

Yes and no.  As already answered in a previous question, secession is perfectly legal under Natural Law and is in fact in keeping with the founding spirit of America.  This was surely the justification used by the Confederate States in their own attempts to secede.

However, as history shows, the South lost the Civil War and the Union remained intact.  Many scholars and lawyers see this as proof that secession is illegal, but these people all ignore one very important point.  The South didn't stay with the Union out of ethical, legal, logical, or cultural reasons.  They remained in the Union because they were conquered and forced to remain in the Union!

If secession is legal under Natural Law, then it's the Natural Law of "might makes right" that declared it illegal for them to secede.  Unlike the American Colonists, they lost the war, plain and simple.  It has nothing to do with the Constitution.  If the Americans had lost the Revolution, we would likely still be tied to the British Empire.  It's the same source of voting power in both cases.

Wasn't Lincoln's decision to preserve the Union a good thing?

Believe it or not, there are many historians, lawyers, and even judges who think that Lincoln was a tyrant!  Imagine that, the Great Emancipator was one of the greatest violators of liberty.  Mssr. Rick, I'm shocked, shocked that we haven't been told the true history about a notable political figure!

There's not much room to go into the full story of Lincoln on this page, but suffice to say, his decision to preserve the Union occured under one of two situations:

1. Either the Confederate States had no right to secede, and thus legally did not secede, and so Lincoln was putting down a rebellion; or

2. The Confederate States had legally seceded, but Lincoln saw value in preserving the Union and invaded them on that premise.

Both of these have problems.

In the first case, the Constitution states that the Federal government has the authority to put down domestic violence, "on Application of the Legislature"  of the States (or the Executive when the Legislature can't).  None of the Confederate States applied for this.  Why would they, when they wanted to secede?

In the second case, the Confederate States would have been their own seperate country and to legally invade would have required a declaration of war, both according to the Constitution and according to the Law of Nations.  It may or may not surprise you that, much like modern presidents, Lincoln didn't wait for a Congressional declaration of war before committing an illegal invasion.

So in either case, Lincoln acted unconstitutionally and this should be enough to throw doubt on the question of whether governments even care about the legality of secession when they will commit other legal and moral attrocities to prevent them.  So was the preservation of the Union a good thing in retrospect?  Probably not, given the cost in treasure, blood, and liberty it took to preserve it.

Yes, the Civil War was horrible, but wasn't it necessary to end slavery?

Short answer: No, it wasn't.  Not even close!

For one thing, besides Haiti, the United States was the only country that had a civil war over the issue of slavery (and even then the issue was mostly an after-thought and a strategy for weakening the South financially and militarily).  The reality is that many countries in Europe and South America at the time managed to abolish slavery through legal, economic, and cultural means without reliance on massive war.

The 13th Amendment which supposedly freed the slaves did not apply to many of the States, such as the Border States.  Initially, the Southern States refused to ratify it and so the Reconstruction Acts were passed to all but replace their governments and install new ones that would ratify the 13th Amendment.  Comapre this to other nations that passed legislation abolishing slavery and then paying compensation to slave owners (because emminent domain), which was far less costly than the Civil War in terms of money and bodies.

The animosity bred by the Civil War also allowed racism to perpetuate far longer than it might otherwise have, and in many ways that's still an issue in parts of America today! 

For more on the relation between secession and race, see this video.

How do you plan on seceding when other movements have failed?

By learning the lessons of history and not repeating past mistakes.  We are fortunate to live in an era where others have paved the way before us.  Countries like India, Pakistan, and Georgia have all seceded from their host countries and gone on to become indepdent States.  Still others, such as Scotland, have come very close.

We can learn a great deal from these, and also from the lessons of American, English, French, Canadian, and other histories about what to do and what not to do.

Do you have a territory?

Well, the short answer is no.  That's one of the main issues we face at the moment is that we haven't yet convinced an entire State to follow through on this.  However, States like Texas and New Hampshire have shown willingness to secede in the past and so we find them to be the most promising candidates.  Though we welcome the efforts of any State that wants to adopt the principles outlined in our Constitution to take up the banner and do so.

Does it have to be a whole State?

Nope.  We're willing to accept any tract of land that's willing to accept us.  There are sovereign countries smaller than the State of Rhode Island.  The main thing isn't the land so much as the law of that land. 

How many people do you need to form an independent Sate?

Surprisingly, not that many.  Rhode Island only has a million people, and it's the eighth least populous State - the smalled being Wyoming with just over half a million people.

At the time of the first census in the United States, Delaware - the smallest State - had just under 60,000 people living there.

There are also a number of sovereign nations that have far fewer than than that.  So really, the main thing is getting a group of like-minded people together on the same tract of land to agree to the same laws.

If you could pick any terroritory you wanted, what would it be?

The whole world?  I don't know.  I don't deal in "what ifs."  They're counter-productive fictions.  I prefer "if-thens," since they at least convey causality.

For instance, New Hampshite may be a likely candidate for secession, but that creates the ugly problem of cutting off Maine from the rest of the Union, which creates a number of issues.  We could settle for just half of New Hampshire and that would work, or we could push to get Maine to join us too.

If we're going to go for New Hampshire and Maine, then why not push for all of New England?  Certainly, those States are culturally very similar and many of them probably share the same sentiments towards the United States in that they're fed up with its tyrannical bullshit!

There's already the (sadly, fictional) Republic of New England made up of the six New England States, plus parts of Canada and New York.  So something along those lines could be plausible, at least.

If we managed to get New England to secede, then strategically, it would make sense to try and get New York to join too, since they have a lot of natural beauty and resources; plus New York City is a major global trade hub, which would be good for our economy.

And then, of course, since I'm from New Jersey, it would be a romantic notion to think my home State would secede along with us just so I don't have to move and leave my family.  Or how ironic would it be if all thirteen of the original States seceded from America?

Alright, this is bordering on the absurd now.  To be honest, we'll settle for whatever we can get and leave it to people to join us later if they want.

Will you be part of the United Nations?

That would be up to the people and their elected officials to decide.  There are good reasons to want to be involved and there are good reasons to remain out of it.  Suffice to say, we're undecided right now.  We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

What other countries would recognize you?

One of the few rules of starting your own sovereign nation is that you build legitimacy when sovereign nations recognize you as a sovereign nation.  Towards that end, there are probably a few that come to mind.

• England, though an ally of America, arguably harbors a grudge against the United States for the whole secession thing and might not be against seeing America come full-circle.

• Scotland might offer a quid pro quo of mutual recognition, though this would certainly put strains on any relationship with England.  In that, it'd be a bit like the relationship between France and America during the Revolutionary War.

• Speaking of France, they tend to love liberty and could be persuaded to recognize us.

• Germany has already made efforts to recognize Sealand, so I think they might be easily swayed to recognize a country with a bit more land.  Plus, they might also enjoy the schadenfreude of weakening America, especially after what the United States did to them during the World Wars (more-so if you know your alternative history).

• Cuba could be a potential ally.  We've no reason to embargo them, since the Cold War's long since over.

All in all, we don't foresee many difficulties in getting at least a few countries here and there in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East to recognize us, particularly those that harbor grudges against the United States government or who have otherwise have felt the sting of American Imperialism. 

Perhaps the United States itself would in time be a good sport and recognize us too, just as England and America are now allies.  Who can really say what the future holds?

Where do you stand on the War on Terror?

The so-called War on Terror is a farse based on the notion that military might can be used successfully against tactics and ideologies.  In large part, it has been allowed to exist and perpetuate with the blessings of the United States, England, and Israel.

The countless civilian deaths at the hands of these western nations has sparked unbridled hatred for Americans and is a risk to the people's security.  We would very much like to put distance between ourselves and the United States before any extremists take their revenge on this country.

Our efforts would actually weaken the United States' military industrial complex to the point where it would force them to reconsider their agenda and perhaps even put a stop to it altogether.  Such is our hope, at least, though we recognize this could have backlash.  The United States might view this as giving aid and comfort to terrorism and so count us among its enemies and come after us.  Likewise, Islamic extremists might not distinguish between us and the United States and so they might also target us.

We acknowledge the realities of these risks, but feel that continuing to enable such attrocities will only make things worse in the long run and put us more in harm's way.  Killing civilians is wrong, no matter what country you're from.

Where do you stand on Israel-Palestine

The Israeli occupation of Palestine is another farse, made more complex by the clandestine machinations of western nations.  This has a long history stretching back to before the first World War with the influences of zionism.

Suffice to say, we oppose the killing of civilians by either side, but recognize that Israel and the United States have played a more substantial role in this conflict and bear the greater blame.  After all, they claim to have the moral high-ground in this conflict and their weapons are far superior than those of the Palestinians.

The Freeman State generally holds to the Non-Aggression principle and so we would not say that either Israel or Palestine should be forced into the sea.  There's no reason they can't both co-exist in a two-state solution.  It's only religious zealotry backed by foreign military and monetary aid that stands in the way and these forces must be recognized for what they are and condemned by outsider nations.

How will you convince people that secession is a good idea?

The United States, and the several States, are already doing a very good job of this through costly wars, rampant national debt, brutalities against their own people, and regulations that restrict employers and entrepreneurs from creating jobs and innovations.  So really, we won't have to do much convincing.  You could say it's almost a silver lining that many are being forced into an awakening and are coming to learn of the value of their own liberty.  You never know what you have until it's gone, right?

It may take many years, but in time, we're confident people will come around to our way of thinking.  We won't have to force them.  They'll come naturally, just as they did during the American Revolution and during the Civil War.

Our main purpose is just to provide a refuge for people to turn to; and beyond that, there are the usual channels of media, Facebook, Youtube, etc. for spreading the message.

Are you going to start a Revolutionary War?

No, we won't start a war.  We don't even want a war.  Why would we?  Our opponent would be armed with unmanned drones, jet fighters, nuclear weapons, lasers, tanks, helicopters, SEAL Team snipers, and all the other advanced weaponry we don't even know about!

To declare war against the United States would be nothing short of suicide; but that doesn't mean one won't be started - just that we won't be the ones who start it.

We would rather have a diplomatic secession if possible, but we're also keenly aware of the fact that, in some ways, open war may already be upon us.  If not in a military sense, then certainly in a political and economic sense.  Suffice to say, the situation is just no longer tolerable.

What are your thoughts on police shootings?

If there's one sure thing in life, it's that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

It's hard to look at what's going on in the world today and not see parallels with what the American Colonists went through.  What's happening in Missouri with the Ferguson and St. Louis shootings (and other shootings) can be likened to the Boston Massacre that lay the groundwork for the American Revolution.

The Freeman Constitution in its current form actually has several provisions to safeguard against this type of thing.  Some are from the U.S. Constitution, but others are new and created in direct response to what we've been seeing.  Some examples include:

- Guaranteeing the right to travel (if police can't pull you over for traffic offenses, you're less likely to be shot).

- Requiring all officers to be monitored while on duty (such as cameras, or some other form of oversight).

- Guaranteeing the right to refuse identification (except for a few express situations).

- Ensuring victims of common law offenses (which unlawful police shootings would be).

- Leaving government agents among the few entities that can be compelled by law to carry license, permit, and insurance.

- More explicit recognition of the right to bear arms (leading to decreased reliance on the police).

These provisions, along with others and a more aware populace, should result in fewer incidents of police brutality.

Would you continue to trade with the United States?

Of course.  If we secede, we want it to be as painless as possible.  There is no reason to maintain bad blood afterwards, provided the United States keeps to itself and doesn't interfere in our affairs.  (Let's just say, we'll keep our fingers crossed, but we won't hold our breath.)

We would love to maintain free and peaceful trade relations and cultural relations with the United States (and with anyone, really).  Certain details of international travel would have to be worked out for purposes of touring and sporting events and the like, but the degree of difficulty of these things will largely depend on how willing the United States would be to work with us, rather than against us.

What would happen to the National Debt?

That's something that would have to be worked out during negotiations; but judging by the precedence already set, it's very likely that (at least for a little while,) we would be required to pay some portion of that to the Federal Reserve through taxation of our own people.  This is because the people are currently held as surety for the debts incurred by the United States and so the debt attaches to them even if they waive all benefits and never take on anymore.  It's just one of the realities of contract law applied to nations - like how Germany agreed to pay war reparations as a conditition of its surrender in WWI.

However, the plus side is that no new obligations would be created and such payments would eventually end because of the end of the welfare / warfare state.

If we can avert war and maintain a minarchist government, then our own national debt will be quite small relative to that of the United States and so any tax impositions will be quite bearble.  The main thing is to just not engage in costly wars or run up a welfare tab.

Would you accept U.S. Dollars as a form of currency?

A tricky question.  Initially, we might have to, but this is undesireable for several reasons. 

The first is that the U.S. Dollar is much weaker than it used to be as a result of inflation.  We would likely want to establish our own currency over time, or to even have a competitive market of currencies (e.g. Bitcoin) and simply set up exchanges for them to help bolster our economy.

Another reason we might not want to accept the U.S. dollar has to do with the fact that the U.S. government currently relies on Federal Reserve Notes, which is borrows at interest.  The high demand for such notes leads to more being printed, which imposes a bigger tax burden on Americans for the privilege of their use.  It's not really in our interest to cripple the American economy, so accepting the dollar would be a double-edged sword.

Thirdly, we need to make sure that we ourselves don't fall into the same trap of establishing a private reserve currency with monopoly over interest rates and the money supply.  That would put us on the fast track of wracking up our own national debt and requiring the use of egregious taxes to pay for it. 

Historically, the establishment of private central banks have been one of the primary causes of international conflict.  Towards that end, we should desire to keep ours tied to the public power.  Otherwise, our efforts to secede would have been in vain!

What are your thoughts about Canada?

The United States and Canada have much in common culturally, historically, legally, and politically.  They're both subject to a similar form of tyrannical federal government that doesn't respect the rights of the people, that imposes income taxes, exploits their resources, borrows money from a central bank, and trumps up charges for things like traffic offenses, drug use, prostitution, and the war on terror.

In all these things, the two countries are alike, just that Canada doesn't seem to have as strong an imperialist presence in the world.

As with most any country, the problem tends to be less with the people and more with the government.  We support Canadians (and people everywhere) who are waking up to what their government is doing and who want to push for greater liberty.

Will you join with Canadian States that want to secede?

That depends on the will of the people in both camps.  Currently, the United States and the Canadian States are in two separate countries each facing their own problems, the first of which would necessary be to find a piece of land and enough people willing to set up an independent State there. 

If there are Canadian States that want to secede and, through treaty, join with us and the people are ok with this, we don't see why it couldn't happen.  Maybe a Canadian State or some other State takes hold of these ideas before any American State does, who knows?

It's really too soon to speculate about such things.

Are you tied to the Freeman Movement?

Tied to?  We wouldn't say we're "tied to" anyone or anything but a love of liberty and return to small government that respects people's rights and the rule of law. 

Some of the creators of this project have certainly been influenced by some of the teachings and principles of the Freeman Movement, just like the Founding Fathers were influenced by the works of John Locke, Al-Ghazali, Emmerich d'Vattel, etc. 

Some Freemen might be interested in what we do and vice versa; but we've many influences and you shouldn't let what one group is doing prejudice what another is doing.  The same goes for any other organization.

"The inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others." ~ Legal Maxim
 

We welcome people of all walks of life and all ideologies, so long as you respect the rights of others and live according to the Non-Aggression Principle.  We think the internet is a great tool for enabling the free exchange of ideas between people and actively encourage it.

What are your thoughts on anarchy?

Short Answer: Anarchy is ideal, but minarchy is pragmatic.

Long Answer: Anarchy is the political philosophy defined by a "lack of rulers," the abolishing of the State monopoly of force to extort wealth and property from people, and adherence to the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression.  It is a fine ideal.  However, in our world, it is not very practical.

If the overwhelming majority of people are addicted to statism, you can't just expect them to give it up cold turkey.  You need a way to step down gradually from it or people will reject it because change is hard.

As it is, we can't even get the majority of Americans to agree on such things as closing the Federal Reserve, repealing the 16th Amendment, decriminalizing marijuana, respecting the 2nd Amendment, phasing out Social Security, or ending American imperialism in the Middle East.  These are issues that most people would consider to be big, noble, uncontroversial ones, and yet there are still so many people that would ardently oppose them for one reason or another.

The Freeman State is a step down from that - a major step down - along the path of weening people off of big government and getting them accustomed to living a life of natural liberty and personal responsibility.  Once people have had a taste of freedom, it is likely they will want more.

Why minarchy instead of anarchy?

Just because you decide to live in an anarchic society doesn't mean everyone else will.  Until such a time as that's the case, there will be at least some need for government to protect against other States.  Most people are simply not yet ready to live out the Non-Aggression Principle in all its forms and so would at least like some assurance of external protection.

We can liken this to the analogy of a child:

When you are young and immature, you need someone to take care of you or you will die.  As you grow older, you learn to start doing things for yourself and so as your level of responsibility increases, so does your freedom.  Eventually, you get to the point of being an adult and your parents finally recognize your maturity and thus the corresponding independence that goes with it.

But just because you're a mature adult who can live without mom and dad doesn't mean there aren't still children in need of protecting; or that there aren't really immature adults who still need to be told what to do, for one reason or another.  So to just treat everyone like a fully-matured adult is simply unrealistic. 

We can certainly continue to teach them to be responsible and independent, but it's unlikely the problem will be completely cured in most people, even after several hundred years.  That will take many generations of re-conditioning to achieve.

So again, anarchy is the ideal, but minarchy is pragmatic.  It's a step along the way towards individual independence.  Some are ready now, but most are not.

Would you allow anarchists to secede from you?

Given that all just government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, we'd like to say yes; but this is tricky.

For one thing, we don't want to undermine the limited authority granted to the State or this could lead to lawlessness and the creation of a refuge for terrorists and other criminals.  That would be all the excuse a foreign power would need to invade us and do great harm to those who were otherwise content to live under the minarchist society.

So if you wish to withdraw from the society, it would be with the full understanding that you would be outside the protection of the State's laws and you'd have to completely depend on yourself.  Again, this is something most people aren't ready for, but some might be and more power to you if you are.

Some people are perfectly fine being members of the club and accepting the corresponding rights and duties that go along with that.  We'd like to think that most people - even many anarchists - would find the society we've created to one more agreeable to them than the current system and they wouldn't mind the impositions quite so much; though we understand if you disagree.