Posted on 09/11/2011 5:50:36 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Can you hear it?
The sound of President Obama’s political advisors licking their chops in anticipation of running against Rick Perry and reminding the rest of us a thousand different ways that the Texas governor knows his Texas history, that is.
As The Washington Examiner’s Haley Peterson reports in today’s print edition, Perry told a Tea Party audience in 2009 that “Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave it if we decided to do that.”
Perry was simply pointing out what most Texans know from infancy, and are known to boast modestly about from time to time when talking to folks from foreign lands like New York and California.
But you would think the former Al Gore supporter from Austin had read Jonathan Swift’s modest proposal for ending the Irish potato famine and cried “Eureaka!” in admiring response.
Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs – an Alabaman who undoubtedly knows Perry was just indulging a familiar Texas past time of boasting about the state’s uniqueness – offered this glimpse of what will surely be a standard Democratic attack theme.
“Rick Perry is the governor who two years ago who two years ago openly talked about whether Texas should leave the union,” Gibbs said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Here’s something else Gibbs also must certainly have known long before he uttered those words on the Jeffrey Immelt’s propaganda network: In the same statement in which Perry reminded everybody of one of the unique conditions of Texas’ entry into the federal union, he also said “we’ve got a great union. There is absolutely no reason to dissolve it.”
So Perry said the exact opposite of what Gibbs would like everybody in America to think he said. But, hey, what’s a little outright lie among friends (Gibbs and his liberal mainstream media buddies asking him questions)?
Here’s another story that is often heard when a Texan comes into friendly contact with one or more Yankees:
In the Spring of 1863, General Robert E. Lee was conducting a military review of his Army of Northern Virginia for the benefit of an English military observer, Col Arthur Fremantle.
When members of Hood’s Texas Brigade “marched” past the reviewing stand, Fremantle, who knew of the unit’s amazing effectiveness as shock troops, was puzzled by what he saw and exclaimed: “Why General Lee, these men hardly have shirts on their backs.”
To which Lee replied: “That’s okay, Colonel. The enemy never sees the backs of my Texans.”
Hearing such a story and being from the state after which the heroes of the tale were named, it’s simply too tempting not to remind visitors from up North that Texas is just about the most unique place in the whole universe.
Too bad some people just can’t tell the difference between pulling Yankee legs and plotting political strategy.
And then talk about them behind their backs.
I'm an amateur historian who has been discussing the Constitution on these threads for almost ten years now. A friendly disagreement about what the Constitution means is not a slam. Calling most Texans "pretty dumb" is a slam, however.
Please point me to a single Constitutional expert in this country who is on record as saying that Texas has rights under the Constitution denied to the other states.
If you will refer back to my earlier response, you will see that I did not take issue with your statement that Texas does not have rights denied to other states, although technically speaking it did have the right when it joined the Union to break into five states. No other state had such a stated right.
Since New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia reserved the right to resume their own governance in their ratification documents, does that mean they have rights that the other states do not have? If NY, RI, and VA have that right, then all states have it through the Doctrine of the Equality of States.
As far as I've been able to discover, those ratifications and their statements of what the Constitution meant were accepted and never repudiated at the time by the other ten states that formed the Union. If you know of any contemporary repudiation by the other ten, please let me know. I would appreciate it.
Those ratifications were not conditional. They were statements at the time of what the Constitution meant to the people who ratified it and in some cases helped write the Constitution. In other words, those ratification statements are about as clear a statement that we have of original intent concerning secession. Madison's objection to conditional ratifications dealt with withdrawing from the Union if certain amendments were not ratified within a certain time frame. The parts I cited from New York's ratification were not amendments; they were statements about what the Constitution meant. There was a separate list of proposed amendments that appeared after what I posted above. New York's proposed amendments did not include the statements I listed. New York had taken the words "on condition" that their proposed amendments be adopted out of their ratification document.
Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, two of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, voted for the New York ratification document containing the reassume governance statement. Jay, of course, was the first Chief Justice. What about the other author of the Federalist Papers, James Madison? Madison was on the committee that drafted the Virginia ratification document, along with future Chief Justice John Marshall and three other Federalists. Both voted for the Virginia ratification document. However, Madison is fairly inconsistent in his statements over time. In old age he argued against secession.
Or any main-stream Constitutional scholar who says that any state can leave the Union at will.
First let me tackle the "at will" portion of your statement. Madison and Marshall wrote (along with the three other Federalists) and voted for the Virginia ratification document that says governance could be resumed "whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will." [my bold] Why would those early states join an experimental form of government where a majority of states might take advantage of them and oppress them? This was discussed at the Virginia ratification convention.
Madison later argued against "at will" secession in his old age during the nullification crisis. The constitutional Union he helped create was about to come apart at that point. Here is what he said on that occasion, "The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect." [my bold] In the Virginia ratification convention he had said [my bold and underlines], "That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes. There cannot be a more positive and unequivocal declaration of the principle of the adoption — that every thing not granted is reserved. This is obviously and self-evidently the case, without the declaration." During the convention, Marshall made a similar statement about things not granted.
Where in the Constitution were other states given the power to approve or block the secession of any other state? They weren't given that power, and I believe that the Constitution would not have been ratified by key states like Virginia and New York if the Constitution had granted that power to non-seceding states. The Civil War ultimately resolved the issue by force.
Now for the constitutional scholar part of your question. There is a discussion about secession and what people believed about it, at least prior to the Civil War, in the 2007 book, "The Politically Correct Guide to the Constitution," by Kevin R. C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D. He makes the same arguments that I and others have been making on these threads for years. Oops, he is one of those "dumb" Texans, or at least he got his law degree from the University of Texas. His Ph.D. in early American history came from the University of Virginia. Good book. I recommend it.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
********************************************************************************
When members of Hood’s Texas Brigade “marched” past the reviewing stand, Fremantle, who knew of the unit’s amazing effectiveness as shock troops, was puzzled by what he saw and exclaimed: “Why General Lee, these men hardly have shirts on their backs.”
To which Lee replied: “That’s okay, Colonel. The enemy never sees the backs of my Texans.”
I currently live in Texas, and I’m like you, Randall... I love Texas, and I think the people are awesome too (except for maybe your old GFs, lol)!
I’d like to add this about Rick Perry as our governor.
There are several kinds of leaders, but there are two kinds who usually stick out.
There’s the leader who tells you how it is and makes you do what you are supposed to do, (because he / she thinks he/she knows best and has the power to do so); and
There’s the leader who builds his / her people up and let’s them be the greatest “people” they can be (because he / she believes in personal freedom and in serving the people instead of forcing them to comply).
One major part of those awesome Texas people is their patriotism freely given and not forced upon them, their understanding of who they are which includes being a part of the bigger picture, not because they HAVE to be but because they WANT to be. They are PROUD of their patriotism here because it is not forced or feigned!
Rick Perry, as their leader is not one to be a dictator, and we are used to that here. That is WHY people were so frustrated with the dictatorship we felt we were getting from Obama and from subsequently the passing of Obamacare without the people’s consent and in fact, completely AGAINST the people’s consent. (Let’s add to the pot that there is no way Texans are going to force our Texans to live under socialism, and that is what Americans were wondering would happen with Obama in office.)
That pure stand against dictatorship and socialism and that ardent stand for freedom that Texans so understand were all coming together, and those ideals were feeling ripped away with a dictator (Obama) telling us he (Obama) could do anything at all he (Obama) wanted to do with us. That talk and that walk doesn’t go well here! I’m sure it doesn’t go well with many other states and people across the country either!
But our leader, Rick Perry, understood, and as the kind of leader who builds his people up instead of tearing them down to suit his needs, letting the people he leads be the best people they can be... when one of those people shared our frustration with the Obama dictatorship and our dread at having to live under that, Rick Perry understood and reminded his people that yes, indeed, we are a good people, and no, we will NEVER allow ourselves to live under a dictatorship, we will ALWAYS be free people and always be free to be the kind of people we are.
He did not actively promote succession that day, yet gently reminded everyone who was concerned that our country is not one which imprisons its people - Our country is one which sets people free. We will ALWAYS fight against socialism and dictatorships, and he will NEVER let his people ever, EVER have to succumb to that kind of life.
I bet that did a lot to settle the unrest of many of Texans, and it may have given a lot of courage to others across the country as well.
America will NEVER give in to that evil, and we will ALWAYS be a great people with exceptional strengths that will NEVER be stolen from us.
Obviously I’ll let Rick Perry explain all he felt while speaking to that one frustrated Texan who wanted to claim any rights of succession from what he/she thought was a coming dictatorship and socialistic world, but as for me, I’m glad he was gentle and understanding in his response to that person (he was CLASSY). I feel fortunate he stands for a free people, and I felt blessed at that moment knowing I was safe under Rick Perry’s leadership. When I heard that he said that, I felt more strength against the Obama dictatorship. I felt we would be safe under Rick Perry’s leadership. From here on out, I’m confident he will cover the backs of all Americans in that commitment to the freedom and greatness of the America we know and love.
Hey, Randall, feel free to come back to Texas some day if you want. Unless you have GFs all across the land, there’s plenty of area of steer clear of them! :)
what’s the big surprise there, “someone else” = “ron paul”. why would this bother anybody?
I like Perry, and I think he will trounce the O, when the time comes. I believe he is a principled conservative...even if not perfect. Certainly more conservative than the last Texan we put in the White House.
My Dad is a native-born Texan. I lived in Texas for my college freshman year. Yes, it is a unique state—in that its citizens think it is unique, even though I can’t for the life of me understand why...as the land itself seems mostly flat, hot, dry and dull. Still I’m glad we have Texas and Texans.
On Texas secession however, didn’t Texas try that once already? How’d that turn out for y’all?
I like Perry, and I think he will trounce the O, when the time comes. I believe he is a principled conservative...even if not perfect. Certainly more conservative than the last Texan we put in the White House.
My Dad is a native-born Texan. I lived in Texas for my college freshman year. Yes, it is a unique state—in that its citizens think it is unique, even though I can’t for the life of me understand why...as the land itself seems mostly flat, hot, dry and dull. Still I’m glad we have Texas and Texans.
On Texas secession however, didn’t Texas try that once already? How’d that turn out for y’all?
Friday one of them tried to tell me that I cannot(have no right to be) be critical of Perry because of the state I live in, and she went on to suggest that I am somehow responsible for the liberals in that state. It was a few hours later on Friday night I created the Perrydactus chart.
Your point is exactly right, I really had not been very critical of Perry before but 'bot's have a way of generating opposition to their candidates by being annoying.
If or when force can no longer be applied, there is nothing stopping any state from leaving.
The South will do quite fine, thank you. Texas may, due to historical reasons, not want to be part of a Western States of America, but instead be part of Dixie again.
Eh, that only really lasts for the first year. Come 2012, the only people that’ll really try and pull that cr@p will be the ones that joined in the 1990’s.
Q: Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White prove that secession is unconstitutional? [BACK TO TOP]
A: No. For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White:
“When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
“...The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.
“...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union.”
— Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)
It is noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.
What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union (they were — see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in “readmitting” a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true.
To be clear: Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions — one, a judicially contrived “interpretation” of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission. If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.
This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day.
Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself...
The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution — precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states.
It's no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a “constitutional” argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession.
An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served: presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government).
Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.
The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.
Texans have NUKES this time around. ;o)
Exactly. That said it will be trotted out first thing and will have to be rehashed (again) for any State that wants to secede. Hench my phrase “climb over”. Many people (some on this thread) do not understand that the law is more about process than justice.
Since there is no point in arguing with the secessionists I simple say - DO IT! Secede and see how that works. Otherwise it is all just Texas BS.
If Obama want’s to go to war over a threat, then we're keeping the nukes... just like some of the *former* Soviet republics.
Stalemate.
If you say so.
If you would like a list of Rick Perry’s latest reads, go to:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/rick-perry-book-club
Of course, your particular reading list is probably far superior intellectually...but since you asked.....
That strikes me more as a hard-core, Leftist union approach, but here on FR - it passes as sound reason for some!
______________________________________________________
I certainly didn’t expect to be called a troll merely for asking questions. I take it that ‘troll’ is a bad thing?
______________________________________________
Dang Non-sequitur-zotted, drennanwhyte-zotted, kstater-zotten and now SOJOCO, you didn’t even make it 3 weeks before people outed you as a troll.
No need to welcome him to FR. He’s been around the zot block a few times. First as Non-Sequitur(got the zot from JR for promoting the homos in the military) then he came back as drennanwhyte, got zotted, came back as kstater and got zotted, is now back as SOJOCO. Let’s see how long he lasts this time. Of course by backing him up makes me wonder about you.
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.