Posted on 04/22/2009 7:12:17 AM PDT by AmericanHunter
When Texas Gov. Rick Perry floated the idea of secession if the federal government continues to pursue an aggressive tax-and-spend policy, the mainstream media, as well as the political establishment, cringed.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews called talk of secession “whack-job stuff,” calling Mr. Perry a “bozo” and telling the Texas governor, “You don’t have a choice buddy.” Mr. Matthews’ colleague, Rachael Maddow, said Mr. Perry was “flirting to the point of adultery” by talking about secession, while commentator Thomas Frank reinforced the disconnect between the media and many Americans.
“What you’re seeing … what is one of the surprising things about these tea parties … surprising to people like you and me, is how mainstream extremism is in the Republican Party and the conservative movement,” Mr. Frank, author of Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, told Ms. Maddow.
But is the idea of secession a foreign concept to the American experience? Is talk of secession automatically treasonous? Is any secessionist movement doomed to be defined by the Civil War and exiled to the political wilderness?
“I think the biggest surprise to me was the outrage expressed by an individual who even thinks ... along these lines,” U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, said yesterday on CNN’s American Morning.
“Because I heard people say, well, ‘this was treason,’ they say, and ‘this was un-American.’ But don’t they remember how we came in to our being? We used secession. We seceded from England. So it’s a very good principle. It’s a principle of a free society. It’s a shame we don’t have it anymore.”
Dr. Paul, who ran a hard fought grassroots campaign for the Republican nomination in 2008, argued the principle of secession is one that protects the union rather than threatens it.
“I argue that if you have the principle of secession, our federal government wouldn’t be as intrusive into state affairs. And to me, that would be very good,” Dr. Paul said. “We as a nation have endorsed secession all along. I mean, think of all the secession of the countries and the Republicans from the Soviet system. We were delighted. We love it. And yet we get hysterical over this.”
Critics of the coverage of the secession comment argue the media is trying to paint the Republican Party as extreme. They say Mr. Perry was not advocating secession, but rather saying the federal government could cause its resurrection.
“We got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that?” Mr. Perry asked.
While the notion of secession was floated by Mr. Perry, he was not expressly advocating Texas leave the Union. Rather, the Texas governor used the idea in a manner Dr. Paul believes is historically accurate — to send a warning shot across the bow of a federal government that is encroaching on state’s rights and individual liberties.
Last week’s tea parties exposed a major rift in the country, and some are concerned the Obama administration does not understand the degree of dissent that is fomenting outside the Beltway. And despite panning by the political establishment, the majority of the nation viewed tea party dissent in a favorable light.
Fifty-one percent of Americans had a favorable view of the nationwide rallies, while 32 percent responded their view was very favorable, according to a poll released by Rasmussen Reports. A third of the nation had an unfavorable view with 15 percent unsure.
But among the nation’s “Political Class,” Rasmussen found just 13 percent held a favorable assessment and zero percent held a very favorable view of the nationwide protest. This disconnect, according to Dr. Paul, is a major part of the problem.
“People are angry. And if we don’t sense that, we don’t know it’s actually what’s going on there,” the Texas congressman said. Dr. Paul said the worst is yet to come because secession will achieve a greater legitimacy as the country struggles.
“When the dollar collapses and the federal government can’t fulfill any of its promises, what if they send you dollars and they don’t work,” Dr. Paul said. “People are just going to — they’re not going to have a violent cessation. They’re just going to ignore the federal government because they will be inept.”
I believe the Sioux still want those black hills back and even though they were awarded money into the billions I think they just want it back for sacred land.
The last court case the judge wrote that America had took the land away and that America did take it unlawful and broke treaties but that judge still, never gave it back but instead he said they could have money for it
a little pedantic I know but it was 61 to 65
LOL
if lets say for arguments sake the south did leave and joined with the midwest and AK then the north east would be screwed, the NAACP would hate it too.
Just look at how the NAACP acted when Sanford wouldn’t take all the money from DC. They wanted all that money because they wanted welfare increases.
Remember an area north of Atlanta wanted to form it’s own county as they were so fed up of paying Atlanta’s taxes and yet it goes to the inner cities and not where they are.
The NAACP came rushing in claiming that they are racists etc
The north east liberals and others would hate to see the south, midwest and AK join up as they the liberals up there would lose a hell of a lot of tax money for their programmes
Even the talk of it gets them going
same here
I said to the wife not long ago that if FL didn’t leave and DC started to take guns away, right to self defence, be soft on criminals and allow homosexual marriage plus raise taxes the we would go to GA as it is across the way from me now
the left would probably want to talk and find each others views,
sit down have a coffee etc
oh wait we’re on about American states, well that’s different I thought you were saying our enemies.
well no obama and his thugs would quickly raise an army and carpet bomb TX and any other state who wished to leave
Yes, indeed, libs FREAK OUT at any talk of secession,
because secession puts people beyond their control fantasies.
Secession followed by repeal or simply nullification of all handouts will take care of some major problems.
The deadbeats will leave the free states and head for the socialist states.
2 Thes 3:10 He who refuses to work shall not eat.
That will go a long way toward solving poverty.
They would have to “raise an army” to do so, because the Oath Keepers would resist their efforts.
can you imagine the liberal states states trying to raise an army
the kids in Boston at college like BU,MIT, Harvard etc, would be out demonstrating.
NAACP would be going mad saying we’re all racist
The aging hippies would be singing cum by ar(sp) to each other.
Illegals would be saying great we can go to Boston and NY city to work with no fear of being sent back now.
The Boston globe and NY times would be doing what they always do and shout war mongers
the lazy will never sign up as they just want their crumbs
but most of all the likes of Kennedy,, Murtha Kerry etc would be going mad as they could not have our tax dollars to pay for things like an airport .
Homosexual groups would be going mad now as they could never push their agenda onto us but in a way they might find their new utopia very nice as they now can tip toe though the tulips holding hands and be accepted as normal
free dixie,sw
Could someone construct a website questionnaire that would allow residents of all 50 States to vote on-line on the question:
If the Federal government continues to erode the rights of each sovereign State of the union to govern itself, would you be in favor of your State seceding from the Union?
Yes or No
No need for any indetifying infomation other than one’s Zip Code. The results will send shudders up the spines of the Feds.
“The results will send shudders up the spines of the Feds.”
As it should. There are literally millions of us that are sick and tired of it. What percentage of the population do you think feel this way? 10%? That would be 30 MILLION of us.
Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel 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."
In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
And who is president of the U.S. currently?
Those here advocating secession are opening a can of worms that they will very much regret opening if such measures are taken to their logical conclusion.
Those of you suggesting that citizens armed with at most semi-autos can stand toe-to-toe with the most powerful military in the world have simply have no idea how a professional military operates. Take a look at Iraq to see how it would turn out for those on the wrong side.
Voting, recall of members of the legislature, impeachment of the president and judges, to name just a few.
State governments could do this without resorting to secession. They should simply refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws.
I apologize for my delay in responding to everyone’s posts. I will try to respond to those remaining by no later than Sunday evening.
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.