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.”
Methinks you've drifted from the sublime to the absurd.
G'night!
to SOME degree you are correct. otoh, there is a GULF between dixie & the north that can NEVER be made whole.
note the number of "RED states" & where they are versus the "BLUE states" & where they are. IF your state voted for bho & your congressional delegation is filled with DIMocRATS, don't tell me that your state has much in common with mine.
free dixie,sw
come the DAY of SECESSION, we southerners (i believe) will be overwhelmed with northerners headed south, just as what happened when North & South Korea were partitioned.(hopefully, a LOT of "fair weather southerners" & "transplants" will also head NORTH about the same time.)
i do NOT condemn the CONSERVATIVES from "up there" for ANYTHING except staying!!! (Eva/Ari are you ladies listening???)
free dixie,sw
At first I was going to let this post go without comment, but I just can’t. You sit there and imply I would be in danger for saying such a thing, but Texans themselves have allowed their state to be overrun with illegal aliens. Where is their courage and strength in dealing with an outright invasion from the third world? Ya’ll haven’t even passed laws to crackdown on illegals and their employers like we have done in Oklahoma, and yet you think that Texans are going to support secession?
free dixie,sw
Suggestion. Study the civil war especially the mobilization part. For instance, the pro Southern soldiers and officers resigned their commisions/enlistments and were allowed to peacefully repatriate to their states. They then joined the CSA/CSN. This happened thousands of times.
***Please cite the section of the Constitution that details the process of Secession.***
There isn’t one. The right exists and is protected by the 10th Amendment.
And what is that can of worms?
Secession is a legal means.
Nullification before secession is a wonderful principle.
States have all powers not denied to the them by the Constitution. The federal government has only powers granted to it by the Constitution. Secession is not denied to the states... see the 10th Amendment.
I was agreeing with you btw
No, but the power to admit states and approve changes in their status once they've been allowed to join are powers reserved to Congress. Implied in that it the power to approve leaving as well.
Nullification is not constitutional.
***Can half of a state decide to secede from a state?***
Irrelevant to the conversation, but if the state wants to split itself in half, why not? It has to be the state’s decision though. Besides, you’re comparing apples to oranges. One arbitrary part of a state wanting to secede from another is different than a sovereign state seceding from a union it created. The state preceded the union. The arbitrary part of the hypothetical state wanting to secede did not precede the state.
***an a state decide to secede and decide that they would like to be annexed by another nation***
Yes.
***can South Florida decide that they would like to seced from Florida and the US and decide to become a part of Cuba.***
You essentially asked this same thing when you asked if half a state could secede from the other half.
***Can a foreeable Latin majority in Mexico decide to hold a vote and decide that Texas is now a state of Mexico?***
No. That’s for the state of Texas to decide.
***Can Saudi Arabia annex Detroit’s large muslim population if they hold a vote and agree to it?***
No. Again that’s for the state to decide.
This thread isn’t dead yet :)
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.