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.”
A Scumsucking bottom dweller that thinks he’s FDR, but he’s acting more like HITLER. If Recent history is a guide.. we’re in trouble...
Five paragraphs citing opinions when the correct answer is, “Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is secession accounted for or a process by which it might take place described”.
I graciously accept your concession.
Let's start with a figure of 1.5 million for the Federal Army. Let's take away half who defect to the seceding states. that leaves 750,000. Let's say ONLY 11 states were to secede. That leaves 70,000 troops/seceding state. It's you who are in dreamland.....
In case you haven’t noticed, votes by the masses are routinely cast aside by the corrupt blackrobes as unconstitutional.
Then those judges need to be impeached or removed by any legal means at our disposal.
Where do you get the idea that half would defect? Also, you are not taking into account that Obama will seek to create his own personal army of brownshirts probably consisting of gangbangers. Then there is the private contractors and foreign troops.
Half, I was being generous. 70%, I would guess, of the current Federal Army is made up of Red state troops. Yes, they are going to defect. Not only that, most of the Navy will also.
every day that passes, MORE southerners decide that SECESSION is likely the ONLY honorable course of action for the south.
may i also remind you that "a cute inoffensive little bunny rabbit" will FIGHT to the death, to save itself from harm???
furthermore, the DAMNyankees/LEFTISTS/DIMocRATS will find "the bunnies of dixie" to be TOUGH in gravest extreme.
free dixie,sw free dixie,sw
Great post!!!!
Furthermore to reinforce your post
“The Federalists are dissatisfied, because they see the public morals debased by the corrupt and corrupting system of our rulers. Men are tempted to become apostates, not to Federalism merely, but to virtue and to religion and to good government. . . . the principles of our revolution point to the remedy—a separation. That this can be accomplished, and without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt. . . . The people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West. The latter are beginning to rule with a rod of iron. . . .
A Northern confederacy would unite congenial characters, and present a fairer prospect of public happiness; while the Southern States, having a similarity of habits, might be left “to manage their own affairs in their own way.” If a separation were to take place, our mutual wants would render a friendly and commercial intercourse inevitable. . . . (Letter from Timothy Pickering to George Cabot, January 29, 1804
You accept squat. I never said it was in the Constitution, that was YOUR misunderstanding. What I said was that the Founders supported secession as a last ditch effort against an abusive central government and I made MY case.
bho scares me.
free dixie,sw
I'm sure you know who George Tucker was.For those that don't know Mr. Tucker was a professor of law at the University of William and Mary and he like William Rawle would agree on the issue of secession...The following is what Mr. Tucker said....
“The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its engagements, its authority are theirs, modified, and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the situation require, to resume the exercise of its functions as such in the most unlimited extent. (Tucker, editor, Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States, Volume 1, Philadelphia: William Birch and Abraham Small, 1803, Appendix: Note D, Section 3:IV
Tell me sir, could your father enter into a contract that required you to make payments to another party without your consent or approval? No court would entertain the validity of such a contract. Could your grandfather enter such a contract? Again no.
But the sheeple earnestly believe that an agreement entered into by generations long deceased are perpetually binding on all subsequent generations. And that a body of people need permission to form a government of their choosing, failing to understand that the people are sovereign, not their government.
Or as Jefferson wrote, that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
These United States
Not United State
The States when joining the Federal Union made it very clear that they withheld the Right to withdraw from it!!Our Federal Constitution can't JUST be binding upon the States..
What is the States recourse when our Federal Government doesn't live by it's end of the bargain?
You are right, they COULD and SHOULD. Unfortunately a lot of State politicians have higher Federal aspirations, so they need to prove their "bonafides" at State level.
That is why we need to get back to electing Citizen Legislatures (temporary service) both State and Federal and not the "professional" politicians we have now.
Not quite...
Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As stated many times by the founders, Secession is a State power and they spoke many times about its proper use in protecting the state.
Since you have decided to go beyond the Constitution, can a state be expelled? Can half of a state decide to secede from a state? Can a state decide to secede and decide that they would like to be annexed by another nation- can South Florida decide that they would like to seced from Florida and the US and decide to become a part of Cuba. Can a foreeable Latin majority in Mexico decide to hold a vote and decide that Texas is now a state of Mexico? Can Saudi Arabia annex Detroit’s large muslim population if they hold a vote and agree to it?
None of these are in the Constitution, any of these example covered by the 10th Amendment?
Just because those troops are from red state America does not mean they will disobey orders to suppress secession. Do you have anything other than that to back up your statement? Something more than a guess?
It is not so much a Southern/Northern schism but a rural/small town vs. suburban/ big city one. I’ve been to most of the states in my travels, and from what I’ve seen most Southerners and Yankees out in the countryside and small town America have much more in common with one another than they do with their regional neighbors in Suburbia and large cities. Why leave those outside the South who would support you to the whims of a Marxist like Obama?
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.