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.”
If they’re a nation, then how do they secede from us?
—
Withdraw from the treaty, get recognition from other nations and/or the U.N., mark their borders, issue passports, etc...
They’ve already got some other nations looking into “recognizing” them now...
***unless Obama decides to use the United States Army to override the will of the people in one or more states. ***
How? The military comes from all the states that would secede :)
If they have a legal claim to be independent then I don’t exactly see what the issue is. What are the terms of our treaty with them?
Isn't that wonderful? If the neo-socialists go too far, they know that their ability to impose their will on free people is quite limited. Obama is not the brightest occupant our White House has ever hosted, but even his drug-addled mind should be able to recognize just how little force he is capable of projecting against the people of (for example) Texas.
Stop running
I REPEAT
If you’re against the right of secession, then you’re this too:
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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”
Now you explain why this was good for us once but now its wrong. Especially when were reserved the right to do it all over again as the above so clearly points out.
Sure about that?
Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
“I know a number of black acquaintances who are VERY conservative.”
..I’ve known them that way myself....but blacks understand racial loyalty much better than whites.....so when the country begins to fracture along racial lines, blacks of all political persuasions will side with blacks....bottom line: blacks will get the South...whites just don’t have the birthrate to stay...look at New Orleans/Birmingham/Atlanta/Richmond.....all major cities of the old Confederacy....all gone black now.
Ah, derision in response to an honest question. I see now that you have no interest debating the subject yourself, you only attempt to use it as 'bait' to line up a few ducks for your self-perceived razor sharp wit.
Be careful child. You might cut yourself.
-----
To any of the grown ups that might be interested...
Yes, according to their treaty, the Lakota tribe have the ability to sever its ties with the United States at will.
You said — If they have a legal claim to be independent then I don’t exactly see what the issue is. What are the terms of our treaty with them?
—
The issue is for one thing, getting the U.S. government to recognize it and to “leave” instead of maintaining all government control. That is one big issue... LOL... (and it would be the same kind of issue in any other state’s secession, too, having the Federal Government just “leave” and not try to declare it illegal and make it an issue of “force”).
Then, the other issue is that if you start doing those things as a sovereign nation (just like any state in the U.S. would do upon secession), you’ll find courts and laws say that you can’t do that and you can’t interfere with other elected officials, which the Feds would come down on a state (and/or the Lakotah, too) like a “ton of bricks” to stop them from doing those things that a “sovereign nation” would do — just like what would happen if a “state” seceded.
So, the Republic of Lakotah is a “textbook example” of what would happen with any state that would try to do that, too...
don’t forget the “oath keepers” movement too.
Mathews is both an ignorant fool and insane, which qualifies him perfectly for MSNBC.
The arrogance displayed by this fruitcake reminds me of another famous line; remember, "...we are here... whether you like it or not!?"
Of course one of the problems with the ignorant is that they don't know they are ignorant.
I don't recall if there are any other states but, if I remember correctly, when Texas joined the union, it reserved the right to withdraw, as a condition of joining and the condition was accepted.
If that ever changed without the consent of Texas, I am not aware of when nor how.
What I’m afraid of is his proposed civilian defense force or whatever he called it. I’m positive that the kind of people joining that would be thugs, liberals, and hard core socialists, or basically people who want to have authority over their fellow citizens and people who love using the power of the state. I’m not saying they would all have bad intentions, in fact many would probably believe they would be serving their country, but I’m almost positive they would have no problem quelling secession (haha, or trying to anyway... our side has all the training).
Although in this day and age, it’s hard to imagine a federal agency actually attacking and occupying a state.
You said — Yes, according to their treaty, the Lakota tribe have the ability to sever its ties with the United States at will.
—
And I think they have the strongest case of *any group* anywhere, to be able to secede from the United States, so they are a “textbook example” of how the U.S. will *keep states from seceding*...
Just watch them and what they can do and can’t do, and you’ll get the idea of what you can do as a “state”, too...
That’s why I say that everyone who supports *secession* — should be supporting the Republic of Lakotah and seeing that they *do get their own country* — in order to have the “groundwork” laid down for the individual states to do it...
So, are you supporting the right of secession with the Republic of Lakotah?
That will tell a lot as to whether you really do support “secession” — as they are doing that very thing... :-)
That doesn’t address the issue of whether they have a right though.
***Then, the other issue is that if you start doing those things as a sovereign nation (just like any state in the U.S. would do upon secession), you’ll find courts and laws say that you can’t do that and you can’t interfere with other elected officials, which the Feds would come down on a state (and/or the Lakotah, too) like a “ton of bricks” to stop them from doing those things that a “sovereign nation” would do — just like what would happen if a “state” seceded.***
I’m sort of confused by what you’re getting at here and I don’t want to misinterpret anything. Would you mind restating it?
Answer the question & stop being a coward about it.
There is very little point in seceding if George Bush or anyone like him becomes President of the Texas Republic. Unfortunately, today that would be a serious prospect. We need to purge Blue State thinking here - meaning, for example, that we no longer consider people like Bush, Hutchinson, or Perry to be serious candidates for political office (not to mention all the RHINOs in Austin). I’ll listen to political secession talk after more Texans have intellectually seceded from the USSA.
***Please note that Texas is the only state with a legal right to secede from the Union***
Virginia and several other states upon ratification of the Constitution reserved the right to secede. Besides, secession isn’t denied to the states and is therefore reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment, regardless of whether they have explicitly reserved the right themselves.
Basically it’s that the Lakotah have the strongest “case” for having the actual written and legal right to secede. The U.S. Government refuses to recognize that, in spite of it being written and legal (even though it was an agreement made by the U.S. Government). The Congress has tried to “pay them off” to withdraw their legal right, but the Lakotah have refused it (the money is still being “held” right now and is accruing interest, by the way...).
So, for someone who maintains that there is a legal and justified right for secession from the United States, the Lakotah have the most “advanced” (i.e., how far along it is) case of anyone, and they have been through the “system”, the courts, the Congress, the Supreme Court and so on, and they’re *still* trying to accomplish it.
How long do you think it would take for the states to do this, when they haven’t even been through 1/10 of the process that the Lakotah have been through legally, politically, with the Congress, with the Supreme Court, and so on...?
There’s only one thing I want to know and that is if you are going to support the issue of “secession” with the Lakotah...
If you support secession from the United States, the Lakotah have the best case of anyone. And, they’ve been “working it” for a lot longer than anyone here that is proposing it.
Thus, they are the “textbook case” for secession from the United States...
And so, do you support the issue of secession from the United States and especially as it pertains to the Lakotah?
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.