Some Think Secession Is Un-American

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.”

The only disagreement appears to be which manner a State or States leave?

I would agree with that.

Do they nullify Federal Law?

Nullifying the law is not an option. States have tried it in the past and the courts had struck it down every time.

Secede?

It it's that important to you then it would be a valid option.

Seriously this getting permission can be problem some.

Why? The only way I can see it being a problem is if you cannot show that secession is the wish of the majority of your population. If Texas legislature announced tomorrow that it wanted to secede then the federal government could and should tell it to go take a flying leap because all evidence shows that secession is opposed by 3/4ths of the Texas population. If, on the other hand, it was clear that secession was the desire of 3/4ths the population then I am adamant in my belief that Congress has no other choice but to begin negotiations with Texas on the separation. To do otherwise would be the height of stupidity. Now you can 'what if' until the cows come home and make all the claims you want on how Obama would never allow it, but we'll never know until the facts are there in front of him for the world to see. And I believe that he will have no other choice than to support Congress in waiving Texas bye-bye.

Well then how about the February 1830 Nicholas Trist letter, which is referenced in LOC collection and in which Madison says:

That IS the letter I was quoting from. It's the same one you were posting from before.

-----

Was Madison dotty in 1830 as well?

Madison himself said his words shouldn't be trusted at that point. Are you saying he was a liar?

-----

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.

If that were is feeling, don't you think he would have been making it clear for 40 years? Yet his latter letters contradict what was said publicly in his prime

-----

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.

Of course you haven't. There is nothing that will 'make you believe' because you refuse to see any evidence to the contrary.

I could post evidence that Alexander Hamilton believed that a State could break its bonds with the Union at will, and you would not believe it.

-----

And Madison makes it clear he believed likewise.

No, you wish to believe he felt likewise.

Your mind id made up, and trying to 'convince' you of something you have no wish to see is a waste of time.

I'll leave now and let the lurkers judge the evidence on this thread for themselves.

“It it's that important to you then it would be a valid option.”

Leaving is always an option! If your a private contractor to a “contract” if the terms are broken..You stop work until resolution is reached or settle the legal entanglements peacefully at best/In the Street at worst

“And I believe that he will have no other choice than to support Congress in waiving Texas bye-bye.”

I hope your right about this! Texas is a damn proud State and that whisper will soon turn to screaming..Obama is walking on thin ice

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.