It is currently Thu Aug 22, 2019 3:42 pm


The Secessionist State of Franklin -- Can it Happen Again?

  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Will Williams

  • Posts: 2198
  • Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

The Secessionist State of Franklin -- Can it Happen Again?

PostSun Aug 10, 2014 4:38 pm

This article is not from the Industrial Age, but perhaps we can form a new section for Secessionist Movements.

http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/com ... /218/entry

The State of Franklin: Mountain Secession and Independent Thought

In North Carolina, regionalism has existed since day one. In August 1784, western North Carolinians established the State of Franklin—“the only de facto state that functioned in every aspect of statal power,” writes historian Samuel Cole Williams. After a civil war in the mountains, however, the “Lost State of Franklin” ceased in February 1789.

During the 1780s, North Carolina was under the Articles of Confederation (the Constitution was drafted in 1787 and ratified by all 13 original colonies by 1789). At that time, “western North Carolina” stretched from the Appalachian Mountains to the Mississippi River.

Soon after the establishment of the state of North Carolina in 1776, North Carolina mountaineers believed the state government always looked eastward. The irresponsive government of North Carolina angered those in the transmontane region (most lived along the Watauga and Nolichucky rivers); it offered no protection from the dangers of the frontier and used taxes to benefit primarily the eastern part of the state. Plus, Franklinites later argued, its seat was too far away for western North Carolinians to send delegates for timely representation.

These problems irritated mountaineers more, when they remembered that they shouldered the onerous burden of fighting to secure western land—land that the state sold to pay off its Revolutionary War debt. In particular, after the “Land Grab Act” (c. 1783) opened western land for sale, western North Carolinians alleged land warrant fraud; legislators and their business partners acquired land warrants for three of the four million acres sold.

The State of Franklin received its first breath in 1784, when the North Carolina legislature ceded its land to the federal government. Already upset with their state government, Washington, Sullivan, and Greene countians, in what would become Tennessee, decided to start their own state and stretch its borders westward and issue land warrants. Meanwhile, angry North Carolina voters replaced their representatives with a legislative body that repealed the act of cession.

Image
The State of Franklin in Upper East Tennessee

Although North Carolina did not recognize its statehood, Franklin operated for almost five years like any other state. It granted, for example, land warrants and marriage licenses and built roads. Franklin leaders even negotiated treaties with the Cherokee and in the state’s waning days, they sought to be annexed by Spain. John Sevier, a former leader of the Watauga Association (the first autonomous white government in the British colonies) and leader of the Wataugans at the Battle of King’s Mountain, served as the first governor.

After a series of problems, including a congressional rejection for statehood and warfare with the Cherokee, many in Franklin, under the direction of John Tipton, called for a return to North Carolina. The denouement in Franklin’s story was in 1788, when a North Carolina sheriff seized Sevier’s property for back taxes. The Franklin Army marched to Tipton’s home where a skirmish, called the Battle of Franklin, ensued. Later arrested for treason and jailed in Morganton, Sevier was rescued by his followers who tried to form, south of the French Broad River, what they called Lesser Franklin.

In February 1789 the leaders of Franklin pledged allegiance to North Carolina. The Tar Heel State, now rid of its competition, ceded its western land to the United States and thereby acquired authority over all legal claims to North Carolina land warrants.

The State of Franklin provided the nucleus of Tennessee, established in 1796. John Sevier was its first governor.

Many have criticized the Franklinites and their act of secession. But they embodied the noble spirit of the American Revolution. These western North Carolinians tried, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, to “abolish a destructive government” that had abused their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and tried to “institute [a] new Government” that was most likely to “effect their Safety and Happiness.”

By Troy L. Kickler, founding director of the North Carolina History Project
See Also:
Related Categories: Places, Early America, Colonial North Carolina
Timeline: 1776-1835
Offline
User avatar

C.E. Whiteoak

  • Posts: 255
  • Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:45 pm

Re: The Secessionist State of Franklin -- Can it Happen Agai

PostSun Aug 10, 2014 11:05 pm

Will, I'll have to say that this right up my alley. I've always been fascinated by the State of Franklin. When the tide of history rolls our way maybe we can do it again. I would be in favor of naming it the White Mountain Republic, White being the description of its citizens, not the name of any particular mountain. As a free republic, we could tell Raleigh, Nashville and the District of the Congo all to go to blazes. :) :)
Offline
User avatar

Wade Hampton III

  • Posts: 1975
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
  • Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: The Secessionist State of Franklin -- Can it Happen Agai

PostMon Aug 11, 2014 11:38 am

Perhaps this area could include the northwestern highlands of SC, as the
demographics seem to be the same as in Eastern Tennessee and Western
North Carolina. Tom Chittum.....

http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Two-Bre ... 0929408179

http://www.rense.com/general62/break.htm

...seems to be spot on with his analysis of where the frontlines will be in the
coming conflict that draws closer by the day.

:!:
Offline
User avatar

Will Williams

  • Posts: 2198
  • Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: The Secessionist State of Franklin -- Can it Happen Agai

PostTue Aug 12, 2014 3:15 pm

Wade Hampton III wrote:Perhaps this area could include the northwestern highlands of SC, as the
demographics seem to be the same as in Eastern Tennessee and Western
North Carolina. Tom Chittum.....

http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Two-Bre ... 0929408179

http://www.rense.com/general62/break.htm

...seems to be spot on with his analysis of where the frontlines will be in the
coming conflict that draws closer by the day.

:!:

Tom Chittum is an old friend. He knows my area and likes it; he even helped me build my home years ago. A careful read of that old Rense article will clue the reader that Tom's 1995 book is outdated, and that even in 2005, bless his heart, he still hadn't quite figured out who our primary enemy is, though he was coming our way. He wasn't so much a race-thinker as he was an experienced military man looking at trends and the obvious racial balkanization of the U.S. that was coming at us like a freight train.

Check out this map and the counties colored pale yellow, here:

Image

My county (Johnson, TN) is right in the heart of that still racially healthful environment and is 97% White, with a smattering of pahoo Indians and a few Negroes up in Nigger Hollow (no kidding, that's the name). Our Congressional District here in Upper East Tennessee (the First, 11 1/2 counties) is said to still be 96% White with most of the non-Whites concentrated in the Tri-Cities area (Johnson City, Bristol and Kingsport).

As can be seen by this map NW South Carolina as well as parts of nine or ten other contiguous states make up southern Appalachia. Actually the region is expandable into several other states, but the old State of Franklin is a good starting point, and we have the history, a precedent for secession from Obama Nation when it comes to the self determination of our people. With a little imagination one can even see a possible future corridor to the port cities of Wilmington, NC, and Charleston, SC, down the Carolina borders.

If we can't conceive it, it can't happen. ;)
Offline
User avatar

Wade Hampton III

  • Posts: 1975
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:40 pm
  • Location: Pontiac, SC

Re: The Secessionist State of Franklin -- Can it Happen Agai

PostTue Aug 12, 2014 11:02 pm

An all-White industrialized independent nation in the Appalachian
highlands is very easy to conceive. The desire to provide the will
to do it will largely be determined by the New National Alliance.
Whites are going to have to learn to get off their knees and on
their feet. Chasing after a "holy ghost" up in the sky or on the
back side of the Moon is simply not going to do it.


:evil:
Offline

A White Nationalist

  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:43 am

Re: The Secessionist State of Franklin -- Can it Happen Agai

PostWed Jan 21, 2015 12:02 pm

WH: "An all-White industrialized independent nation in the Appalachian highlands is very easy to conceive."

No all-white "nation" will ever be permitted to exist by the US government, whether on the East Coast, or out West with Harold Covington's scheme. Secession was made permanently illegal by the end of the Civil War, and nothing short of bloodshed and the entire destruction of the US government (by force of arms) will ever change that. My feeling is that we should not entertain ideas like this, and instead work toward "tipping the boat over", by a concerted effort of legal destabilization.

Michael Olanich

Re: The Secessionist State of Franklin -- Can it Happen Agai

PostWed Jan 21, 2015 12:38 pm

A White Nationalist wrote:WH: "An all-White industrialized independent nation in the Appalachian highlands is very easy to conceive."

No all-white "nation" will ever be permitted to exist by the US government, whether on the East Coast, or out West with Harold Covington's scheme. Secession was made permanently illegal by the end of the Civil War, and nothing short of bloodshed and the entire destruction of the US government (by force of arms) will ever change that. My feeling is that we should not entertain ideas like this, and instead work toward "tipping the boat over", by a concerted effort of legal destabilization.


I agree that there will be no peaceful way out of our mess. Many still want to avoid or ignore the cold hard truth that only through force will change happen. How anyone can believe that seceding won't be met with violent force from the current system is beyond me. Our people seem to be too squeamish to admit that violence and bloodshed will be needed to spark a revolution. Of course, I do not advocate such at the present time, like you said the current system must degrade and destabilize to the point where it can't sustain itself. I don't know how long that'll take, I can only guess at least a couple of decades from now.

I'm not directing this toward Wade Hampton, who I've found has the best of intentions for our people.
Offline

A White Nationalist

  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:43 am

Re: The Secessionist State of Franklin -- Can it Happen Agai

PostSat Jan 24, 2015 11:13 am

Secessionist ideas and dreams are fairly common in some parts of the country, as I'm sure you know. Probably in Texas will you find the strongest advocates. But one need not be a military historian or involved in government to comprehend that any attempt to withdraw from the Union will be met with SWAT teams (at first) and then full-blown US army attack should any significant citizen revolt occur.

Out West, Harold Covington's "Northwest Imperative" entertains this idea, but goes one further: he does not advocate secession from the US—he advocates armed revolution. Now, disregarding HAC's unsavory reputation for a moment, does his idea have merit? If it had even an ice-cube's chance in Hell, it might, but it doesn't even have that. Should any of his handful of followers (perhaps 20 at most) ever attempt such an armed guerrilla war, HAC will become a bullet magnet overnight. In other words, his idea is so far-fetched it's rather sad and pathetic.

Personally, I believe that a form of legal destabilization of American society, whereby US cities are legally disrupted by continuous non-violent clashes with non-whites (inflame them on MLK day, for example) causing great losses of taxpayer revenue. Jeff Schoep, of the National Socialist Movement, cost one city close to a million dollars once, after negroids rioted and burned, causing massive damage and massive police response. Cities hate paying for such things, for it's revenue spent for nothing.

If such a campaign of legal destabilization could be waged in twelve major cities a year, with an eventual ramp-up to fifty a year, the WN movement could potentially drain the government coffers of hundreds of millions, and maybe even billions of dollars, in both damages and excessive police/fire services. Now, this is destruction and damage that would be caused by rampaging negroids and mestizos, and never whites. In the case of Jeff Schoep and the NSM, they did nothing illegal. They simply established a presence in a city and this presence ignited negroids into going full-retard.

Secession? Not a chance. But civil defiance on a round-the-clock basis by dedicated "shock troops" of white nationalists could be the biggest headache the US government ever had. And a very costly one at that.
Offline
User avatar

Will Williams

  • Posts: 2198
  • Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: The Secessionist State of Franklin -- Can it Happen Agai

PostSat Jan 24, 2015 12:37 pm

A White Nationalist wrote:Secessionist ideas and dreams are fairly common in some parts of the country, as I'm sure you know.

If it can't be conceived, it can't happen. We will have our own living space and it makes sense that that space is not in the deracinated urban areas, but in areas that are already homogeneous -- nearly all White. Southern Appalachia is one of those large pockets of Whiteness that have been White for a long time and want to stay that way.
Probably in Texas will you find the strongest advocates. But one need not be a military historian or involved in government to comprehend that any attempt to withdraw from the Union will be met with SWAT teams (at first) and then full-blown US army attack should any significant citizen revolt occur.


Not around here, they won't. SWAT teams are nearly all White and found in urban areas, and the unisex, multiracial U.S. Army is a joke -- less than 50% White male now, except for Special Forces that are still mostly White male. If Whites here were somehow to realize that our kind is actually worth preserving, thus worth fighting for, the U.S. Army would never come into these hills where everyone has weapons and knows how to use them.
Out West, Harold Covington's "Northwest Imperative" entertains this idea, but goes one further: he does not advocate secession from the US—he advocates armed revolution. Now, disregarding HAC's unsavory reputation for a moment, does his idea have merit? If it had even an ice-cube's chance in Hell, it might, but it doesn't even have that. Should any of his handful of followers (perhaps 20 at most) ever attempt such an armed guerrilla war, HAC will become a bullet magnet overnight. In other words, his idea is so far-fetched it's rather sad and pathetic.


So why mention him. He's the enemy of our Alliance and always has been: http://noncounterproductive.blogspot.co ... iam-l.html

Personally, I believe that a form of legal destabilization of American society, whereby US cities are legally disrupted by continuous non-violent clashes with non-whites (inflame them on MLK day, for example) causing great losses of taxpayer revenue. Jeff Schoep, of the National Socialist Movement, cost one city close to a million dollars once, after negroids rioted and burned, causing massive damage and massive police response. Cities hate paying for such things, for it's revenue spent for nothing.


Who made the money? Who got the million dollars? Schoep nor any other WN group received a penny. At least they impressed you.

Cities are destabilizing just fine without our interference. White people in those cities are going to need places to come live amongst their own when more cities become unlivable for them. Perhaps you should join with Schoep's NSM (though you say you are not a National-Socialist) since his model is more to your liking than the National Alliance's.
If such a campaign of legal destabilization could be waged in twelve major cities a year, with an eventual ramp-up to fifty a year, the WN movement could potentially drain the government coffers of hundreds of millions, and maybe even billions of dollars, in both damages and excessive police/fire services. Now, this is destruction and damage that would be caused by rampaging negroids and mestizos, and never whites. In the case of Jeff Schoep and the NSM, they did nothing illegal. They simply established a presence in a city and this presence ignited negroids into going full-retard.

There you go with that "Movement" stuff. Our Alliance is not part of the "Movement." If you want to go out and incite Negroes in the cities, go ahead and join the NSM (though you are not a National-Socialist). Read this: viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1763 If you want to argue against our position on the "Movement," Harold Covington would love to have you help him. He's been in the Seattle area now for years and hasn't managed to disrupt a thing there with his scam.
Image
Spot the hobbyist in this group
Secession? Not a chance. But civil defiance on a round-the-clock basis by dedicated "shock troops" of white nationalists could be the biggest headache the US government ever had. And a very costly one at that.

Go for it. Don't just talk about it. Do it. Just don't associate your actions with the National Alliance. We're not going to be your shock troops. We've got better things to do with our time and resources.
Offline

A White Nationalist

  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 1:43 am

Re: The Secessionist State of Franklin -- Can it Happen Agai

PostSat Jan 24, 2015 1:37 pm

I thought this forum would be a venue for intelligent WN's to discuss and consider various points of view, although, like Stormfront, I suspected that even a slight deviation or disagreement might not be welcome. So let me just come right out and ask: Chairman Williams, is this forum basically for MEMBERS of the NA to use? It's beginning to look that way, and that's fine. It's your forum. And though I'm not looking to get banned, I think that's what's coming, since my commentary seems to engender hostility; but then the entire WN movement is one vast cauldron of hostility. I've personally witnessed all the hostility that YOU received while posting on The Phora, VNN, and Stormfront, and how those opposed to you were relentless in their attacks against you. They simply hounded you to death, though you shrugged it off. But that's what I mean: the WN "movement" cannot bear any criticism, at least beyond the mildest form.

Furthermore, I agree that neither this, or any other WN forum has "free speech" - they do not. But they lack something that I believe is far worse - free thought. The very act of thinking is not usually wanted, not just the content itself. By that I mean: the expression of ideas that might - just might - serve to advance our Cause are usually scorned. Not defeated with reason and logic, just...scorned. Nobody seems to want fresh ideas, believing all the "best" ways have been found to promote the WN Cause. And yet, we're losing. Even the revamped NA will not likely recover to the same level Pierce brought it to, at least not in your lifetime. That's not an insult; it's simply an assessment of what the former NA was at its height, to what it is now. It will take at least a decade to restore all the lost membership, though I know you won't like hearing that. And let's face it: you'll not likely find an intellectual replacement for Pierce - ever. So you're going to have a very steep, uphill climb. Now, before you hit the Ban Button, I am a genuine WN. And I could prove so, were it necessary. But being a genuine WN never saved anyone from Don Black's blood-stained ban-hammer, so I doubt it will here. I merely mention it because I am on your side, as I once was on Mr. Black's. But he didn't care; he wasn't about to let anything jeopardize the $7,500 per month chunk of donation cash be threatened.

Finally, this is why I never joined the NA, although I was asked more than once. I'm a free thinker, Mr. Williams. If I agree with a fellow WN, I'll say so. If not, I'll articulate why, and let the chips fall where they may. But...those chips usually have "banned" engraved on them. Even so, it's precisely free-thinking white nationalists like me that are the most needed in our struggle, yet few within the movement seem to want us. Ask around, you'll learn that for yourself. You see, I wish the NA all the luck in the world, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything it believes or does. And were I a member, I suppose I would be "excommunicated" in short order.

That's why I'm a "lone wolf".

AWN
Next

Return to The Industrial Age

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest