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.”
Prior to the firing on Sumter there was no political or public support for forcing the Southern states to return. Had the South not resorted to war but had instead waited the North out, I truly believe they would not be a part of the U.S. today.
Sir,
I think the main problem is....Madison and the Founding Fathers in General counted on the love of Freedom to restrain Government.
The question remains..What would they say in U.S.A 2009? In my opinion they would curse us for cowards and attack Local,State,Federal Governments themselves!!!
The letter is dated January 1833. And none of the letters posted on the site have Madison's signature, it's implied since it's on the site. For example, this letter to Nicholas Trist in February 1830 - Link - doesn't show Madison's signature, either. It contains this quote: "Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."
Time and time and time again Madison makes his position clear - a true and lawful secession requires the consent of the states and not just the party leaving.
King Lincoln was going to ‘provoke’ until he got his was..
Think about it ”These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and public necessity...”
“You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.”
Lincoln wanted bloodshed..PERIOD!
***Unilateral secession does.***
Where? I still don’t secession prevented. I see rules for entering and altering territory. Nothing about secession.
***Walking out on their responsibility for obligations entered by the nation as a whole while a part.***
What “obligations”?
***That’s how it works.***
So anything the Supreme Court says is law in your opinion (practically it is, but practically the stimulus is law because it was passed but that doesn’t make it Constitutional)?
And the 10th Amendment does a pretty good job of saying otherwise. Whether the government chooses to abide by that is another matter.
I agree to a point, but that obsession of “saving the union” thingy gets in the way of agreeing completely.
WOW! Thanks for the link to the powerful and interesting info.
I would disagree on that. Creating states, admitting them, and controlling their actions where they impact the other states is clearly a power reserved to Congress.
I've explained were. You just don't accept it. We'll have to agree to disagree.
What “obligations”?
Public debt and financial obligations like pensions and social security. Treaty obligations. Disposition of federal property in the state. Things like that.
So anything the Supreme Court says is law in your opinion (practically it is, but practically the stimulus is law because it was passed but that doesn’t make it Constitutional)?
No, the Supreme Court doesn't make law. Congress does that. The Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of the actions performed by the states and the other branches of government.
Perhaps, but Lincoln could not act in a vaccuum. Absent provocation on the part of the South, something like attacking a federal army garrison, Lincoln didn't have the political or public support to act on his own. He could have talked about 'saving the Union' all he wanted and still not been able to do anything about it.
***I would disagree on that. Creating states, admitting them, and controlling their actions where they impact the other states is clearly a power reserved to Congress.***
Creating states, admitting them, and altering their territory. The whole “where they impact other states” is absent from the text. As is rules for leaving/secession. And the power is not solely with Congress in the other cases; it must be mutual, or in other words one must get permission from the other.
***I’ve explained were. You just don’t accept it. We’ll have to agree to disagree.***
Fair enough.
And controlling actions that impact the other states. Look at the restrictions placed on the states by Article I, Section 10. One common thread in almost all of them are that if allowed they could have a negative impact on another state or states. Likewise Article IV contains more restrictions on actions that may have the same effect. You cannot use the Constitution as a club to beat the other states with. The Constitution protects all of them, not just those leaving. You cannot just say 'to hell with it' where the other states are concerned, even when leaving.
And the power is not solely with Congress in the other cases; it must be mutual, or in other words one must get permission from the other.
A more accurate description would be that the states have to get permission from Congress to take those specific actions.
We must remember— The Writings of James Madison,in Gaillard Hunt,Volume 9 New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1910, p. 383
“extreme cases of oppression” a state would be “absolved . . . from the Constitutional Compact to which it is a party”
George Washington's U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania William Rawle said a state had the right to secede.
“It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood. . . . (A View of the Constitution of the United States, 2nd Edition, 1829, Vol. 4, p. 571)”
Likewise George Tucker and was appointed as a federal district court judge by President James Madison , also said a state had the right to secede.
“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)
George Washington’s Secretary of State
“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,”
Thomas Jefferson—”sever ourselves from that union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness”
Must we ever forget this— “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States”
Richard Henry Lee
LOL! How hypocritical. You 'imply' with every breath, yet discount implications stated by others.
It's quite simple to verify letters to Madison, his collection is in the Library of Congress. Looking under 'Rives' brings up only 2 letters concerning the first name Alexander...both TO Madison. None are from him. [ http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/madison_papers/nameR.html ]
Nor is this letter to Rives listed at http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm.htm , which is another index of Madison letters. The Trist letter, however is listed.
-----
From the letter:
The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
Skipped right over that part, didn't you?
***
This particular letter also contains a 'for your eyes only missive:
But being aware that without more development & precision, they may in some instances be liable to misapprehension or misconstruction, I will ask the favour of you to return the letter after it has passed under your partial & confidential eye.
'Partial eye'? Maybe Madison knew the recipient was biased against secession.
***
Not to mention Madison himself said that, due to advanced age, his judgment was questionable.
But I am unwilling to enter the political field with the "telum imbelle" which alone I could wield. The task of combating such unhappy aberrations belongs to other hands. A man whose years have but reached the canonical three-score-&-ten (and mine are much beyond the number) should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not, and should never forget that his arguments, whatever they may be will be answered by allusions to the date of his birth.
----
You continue to use material Madison wrote in his later years while ignoring information such as the Federalist paper which Madison wrote in the prime of life and while in full possession of his facilities.....why?
If a State must ask permission from others—
What if the complaining party doesn't get resolution? Let's pretend the Obama administration passed another Gun ban/Idaho files suit on behalf of it's residents/Federal Courts rule in favor of the Federal Government/ Idaho is now joined by it's Sister States in defiance of this Federal ruling....
Do they nullify Federal Law? Secede?
Seriously this getting permission can be problem some
"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."
Was Madison dotty in 1830 as well?
You continue to use material Madison wrote in his later years while ignoring information such as the Federalist paper which Madison wrote in the prime of life and while in full possession of his facilities.....why?
Because during the period when Madison was making clear his dismissal of the whole concept of secession without the consent of the other states he had watched the Constitution in action for 40 years. He had seen how others would abuse it and find meanings in it that weren't there to begin with. By 1830 states had threatened to walk out of the Union in a snit on several occasions, when writing the Federalist Papers it had never been discussed or, probably, contemplated. It's natural that Madison would be in a position to clarify what the founders had intended. I've seen nothing that would make me believe that any of then every intended actions like unilateral secession guaranteed to cause hostility and acrimony. And Madison makes it clear he believed likewise.
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.