Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Case for American Secession: Still a Good Idea (a strange article)
Chronicles magazine ^ | November 2005 | Kirkpatrick Sale

Posted on 04/24/2006 4:48:22 PM PDT by robowombat

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: decal
From the Handbook of Texas online, the following...

The 1845 Constitution incorporated a rigid amending process that required two legislative approvals by a two-thirds vote with an intervening election at which a majority of all voters voting for representatives had to approve. The rigidity was retained until the Constitution of 1876qv except for substituting a majority of voters on the amendment in the next three charters. The statehood charter was amended only once. The 1850 amendment established a "plural executive" whereby the governor must share power with other popularly elected executives, in this case the lieutenant governor, state treasurer,qv comptroller, general land commissioner, and attorney general (designated an executive officer in 1869 and 1876). It also provided for popular election of judges and district attorneys.

snip

1861-75. As momentous as were the Civil War and its aftermath, continuity outweighed change in the fundamental structure of Texas government provided for in the four constitutions from 1861 to 1875. Constitutionally speaking, Texas was ruled (in Texas v. White) never to have left the Union. The Constitution of 1861qv approved after secessionqv and the 1866 charter drafted under presidential Reconstructionqv were in actuality amendments to the 1845 constitution. The 1861 amendments, which were never submitted to the voters, were minimal with respect to structure. A new provision expressly authorizing the legislature to call a constitutional convention had no lasting effect, but the requirement that amendments be proposed only at regular legislative sessions was not altered until 1972"

I learn something new everyday, Thank you

TT
21 posted on 04/24/2006 7:23:57 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: georgia2006
I wish Alaska would suceed

Speaking as an Alaskan, So do I.

We could develop our land and resources as we see fit and without interference from outsiders, greenies, and democrats.

Just selling the 10 Billion bbl's of oil in ANWR is worth 700 Billion at todays prices. I will leave it to your judgment weather we could build an independent country on an investment of that size.

22 posted on 04/24/2006 7:39:16 PM PDT by Species8472
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: georgia2006
I left New Orleans 10 years ago and my only criteria for destination was which State was more likely to secede, my two picks were Texas and Alaska, Texas at the time had a very active movement and so here I am.

I Love the USA, I spent 28 years in Service, saying that and seeing (at the time) what the Clintons could do, I wanted to find like minded Free people not interested in traveling a Socialist path.

I still think that Alaska and Texas fit that description (Perry can't zip his zipper without looking in a mirror to comb his hair first, he WILL NOT Californicate Texas). I lived in Alaska as a child and it is dear to my heart, I'm just a little old and underfunded to make that move (until my kids are out of College)

Freedom as I lived it in my youth does not exist anywhere on this Planet anymore, I just want to live my last years in a place that is a close approximation.

TT
23 posted on 04/24/2006 7:39:41 PM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Species8472

is there any serious movement?


24 posted on 04/24/2006 7:40:02 PM PDT by georgia2006
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: georgia2006
Alaskan Independence Party Website
25 posted on 04/24/2006 7:48:19 PM PDT by Species8472
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis

> Problem is when you fence the borders, Chicago will be caged in.

How is this a problem?


26 posted on 04/24/2006 8:00:25 PM PDT by orionblamblam (I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
Somewhere John C Calhoun is laughing.

So am I. Thank you for posting this.

In addition to being strange, the author is just plain wrong. The U.S. military "wouldn't mow down San Franciscans"? Oh yes it would, and there would be milllions openly volunteering to join the armed forces to help cut down any such "secession". What Sale seems to forget is that even such ultra-liberal bastions as San Francisco have population that are roughly 25% Republican, give or take. None of those people would ever want to secede, and unless such a movement was essentially unanimous in any given area, the local government would have no moral standing to attempt to do so. That other 25% would have the right to compel their nation to come to save their freedom and soverignty from the tyranny of the majority, and we as Americans would have the unquestionable responsibility to save those people's right to live as Americans under an American flag. The Constitution's pretty clear about this.

27 posted on 04/24/2006 8:04:28 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War (This tagline is false.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasTransplant

What's funny is, up until Lincoln's assassination, the Government maintained that the Southern States never Seceded. They were simply "states in rebellion."

How can the government then force a state to apply for readmission to something they never left?

The Union handed the South it's victory after beating them on the battlefield.

Idiots then, Idiots now. Just now they are arrogant idiots.


28 posted on 04/24/2006 8:10:11 PM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

May I strongly beg that New York city be added to that list of separations from the US. I'm sure Detroit and Nawlins could go it alone just fine too.


29 posted on 04/24/2006 8:42:18 PM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

WEll, he does have a point.


30 posted on 04/24/2006 10:10:11 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robowombat
Do you wonder whether this guy is a liberal or a conservative?

it is hard to believe that Washington would actually command its troops to mow down Los Angelenos and San Franciscans the way they do the civilians of Fallujah and Najaf,

What a #4c%1ng loser. Our troops do not mow down civilians anywhere, no matter how much such action would be justified. The author gives away his intentions fairly quickly. I stopped reading at this point, and I don't care what he has to say.

31 posted on 04/25/2006 12:50:14 AM PDT by webheart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War

If they secede let em go by counties, sparing those of us in "blue" states, but NOT in blue territory. If you look at the last election map, that leaves the Left a few South African style "homelands" where they can not feed themselves. Hell they will need a passport to get to the Walmart....


32 posted on 04/25/2006 1:01:01 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lester Moore

Never forget Waco! Never, ever, ever forget Waco!

Never deceive yourself into thinking that the government is your friend.

Never forget the first public murders committed by the Clintons and Reno!

Never forget the liberals who smugly announced that "Now we're going to get some serious gun control!"


33 posted on 04/25/2006 4:49:15 AM PDT by NaughtiusMaximus (Join me! Every night I pray for Global Warming . (And I think it's beginning to work.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
The Constitution begins "We the people...", not "We the states..."

Interesting sequence demonstrates theological degeneration:

The great blood-drenched death-machines of the 20th century were all "democracies," unrestrained by any power other than the whims of the majority.
34 posted on 04/25/2006 5:16:50 AM PDT by TomSmedley (Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TomSmedley

Democracies were they? I would say the "great death machines" of the 20th century were Russia (communist), Germany (socialist), China (communist), and Cambodia (communist). Where are the "death machine" democracies?


35 posted on 04/25/2006 5:50:57 AM PDT by Durus ("Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TomSmedley
The great blood-drenched death-machines of the 20th century were all "democracies," unrestrained by any power other than the whims of the majority.

You mean like Nazi Germany, Tojo's Japan, Mao's China, Stalin's Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge...? Please help me out here. Which of those were democracies?

36 posted on 04/25/2006 5:57:44 AM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: robowombat

Sale says some crazy things about WMDS, the economy, foreing policy, and other matters, but as far as the legality of secession, he hits the nail on the head.

Secession should be a last resort, but when the constitutional limits have totally disasppeared and every other means has been tried, secession is the states' trump card. By quashing it, Lincoln essentially empowered the Federal government to exercise absolute power.


37 posted on 04/25/2006 7:20:38 AM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68

Just read your note about Lincoln being right based on "we the people", not "we the states".
This is a very curious viewpoint.

"The people", en mass, did not create, nor do they modify the Constitution.

The Constitution was created when States sent representatives to the Convention; it was only effected when ratified by THE STATES--- NOT "the people" in general.

The federal government has ONLY powers delegated to it by the STATES, when they ratify an amendment.

The federal government, therefore, is not superior to the States, but only an agent of the States.

As the author clearly stated, for many, many years, States passed acts of nullification- if effect, telling the federal government to KISS OFF.

Lincoln was a tyrant. There is no other explanation for his actions. Like all tyrants, he abused his power to force a government on a large group of people who wanted liberty from that government. Just like King George, and Mao, and Stalin.


38 posted on 10/04/2006 1:53:57 PM PDT by Jsalley82
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Secession should be a last resort, but when the constitutional limits have totally disasppeared and every other means has been tried, secession is the states' trump card.

BINGO!

While many people rightly believe government can only posses the authority given to it by the People, no one can explain where the right to force a State to stay in the Union can be found.

-------

A visitor to your home cannot be forced to stay past the point in which he wishes to leave. If, as individuals, we do not have the legitimate authority to force someone to associate with us against their will, how could we ever have given that power to the State governments? If the State governments can't posses that power, how did they give it to the federal government?

The beast we live under today is a far cry from the Freedom of the Founders.

39 posted on 10/04/2006 2:11:53 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am NOT a 'legal entity'...nor am I a *person* as created by law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jsalley82
Just read your note about Lincoln being right based on "we the people", not "we the states".

PRE'AMBLE
1. Something previous; introduction to a discourse or writing.
2. The introductory part of a statute, which states the reasons and intent of the law.

The Preamble is an introduction to, but not part of, the legal text of the Constitution.

It is merely a statement of purpose.

40 posted on 10/04/2006 2:38:27 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am NOT a 'legal entity'...nor am I a *person* as created by law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson