Parting Company

For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

Since Barack Obama's re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitions for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let's look at the secession issue.

At the 1787 constitutional convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, "No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."

The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

There's more evidence seen at the time our Constitution was ratified. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution would have never been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.

The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."

I have no intention of telling you where I reside. None. If I was hiding - I wouldn't be posting on an internet forum moderated by the Feds.

So, you admit that Big Brother already knows who you are and where you're located. You're just not interested in sharing that information with Freepers, most of whom proudly display their state flags on their profiles. Uh-huh.

By refusing to rise to this simple challenge, you prove yourself to be the windbag coward I thought you were. Mr. Huff&Puff who claims he's not hiding, yet won't tell anyone which state he resides in. Right.

You've discredited yourself, coward.

Of all the comments yours come closest to my feelings on the matter. As a young boy in a parochial grade school I was taught about the establishment of the USA with It’s Constitution and what the 4th of July was celebrating. I was also taught about the civil war and the feelings on both sides. For me the civil war was a mixed blessing of rights and wrongs but above all the union of the USA was kept intact. I learned about the Spanish American war and WWI. Then came the bleak days of the depression and my mother working heart and soul to provide for two young boys whose father had passed away. I ,along with my brother, was caught up in the frenzy and anxiety of the possibility of not having our USA even with all of It’s shortcomings. My brother was killed on Okinawa and I also served my Country as a soldier in the Pacific Theater. My brother and I were willing to give our lives for the USA. Today I see a Nation of people, young and old, who no longer respect the 4th of July for what that date was meant to honor. My Country, all over, has become enamored with concerts, ball games, Hollywood stars, etc. and taking from others. Even with such pessimism I am not willing or wanting to dissolve what was and is an exceptional bonding of people for whatever cause and by whatever means. I believe that the societal cleavages brought on by the likes of Obama and his cabal, who often speak with deceptive words, will not withstand the power of the ideas and actions of our Founding Fathers. Many people in this Nation do not see for now the government foundation laid down by these men but what has been in the ground will come forth. With this being said there is the realization that the Nation needs many, strong,sincere, and persons of integrity to carry through with the Founders intentions

I didn’t fall for your juvenile trap there pal, neither did I agree to accept whatever silly ‘challenges’ you of your own arbitrary accord demand others pony up to in order to ‘prove’ to the satisfaction of an unknown ‘Windflier’ on the internet - that they are not a ‘coward’.

Again - when did you stop beating your spouse and kids? Or are you still in High School?

I’ll assume the likes of you learned whatever definition you have of courage and patriotism from the TeeVee or from watching Hollywood movies. It explains much of your posts on this subject: juvenile and without shred of either understanding or experience to lend any credence to what you post.

You’ve already demonstrated you have no clue whatsoever about the domestic enemy now ruling us, so it goes to figure your definitions and litmus tests are as shallow and sophomoric as your assertions of this regime’s reaction to any state seceding.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.