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.”
The Lakotah should just declare their independence then. If a state really wanted to secede, it wouldn’t go to the agent it’s seceding from since that agent is TRYING to keep that state from seceding.
I think the discussion is interesting, but not relevant to whether a state has the right to secede.
Thats what I thought....run away boy
So, PLD, since you mentioned Texas (and it was a sovereign nation at one time, too...) — do you support the secession from the United States of the Lakotah, as they have been trying to accomplish for a while now?
The Lakotah have that right to do so, written in their treaty, but the U.S. is refusing to honor that treaty (which is the same thing I suspect will happen to Texas, too).
So, I would say that the Lakotah would be a “textbook example” of what will happen with Texas, if they try it. Look at the Lakotah and you’ll have your example of what will happen with Texas.
Well, I see you don’t support the issue of secession then... LOL...
TWBTS no more settled the NATURAL RIGHT of secession than the blitzkrieg of Poland settled, for all time, FREEDOM for Poland.
free dixie,sw
The Lakota tribe cannot secede from the United States because they were never a State. It is a recognized sovereign Nation with a treaty. Like any other contract, treaties can be terminated.
Well, it doesn’t just come down to right to secede but also to whether the U.S. Government will allow it. And you can see from one example that they will not allow it.
They have many “mechanisms” in place to disallow that — and that’s why it’s a “textbook example” of what will happen if states try to secede. The same thing will happen.
Use them as that example. And *also* use them for the “precedent” in seceding in helping them *actually accomplish* the secession from the U.S. Then you set up the groundwork for any other state to do so....
Good luck getting Chief Tapdancer to give you a straight answer.
Your post is spot on and the position I’ve been taking regarding all the arguments against secession. Thanks.
They have a higher order of right to secede than any state does, because they were a sovereign nation before joining the U.S. They actually existed as a nation even before the U.S. itself existed on this land. They actually precede the U.S. on this land.
So, I would say that they have a higher order of right to secede than any state does...
So, does that mean you support the Lakotah in their bid to secede from the United States, per post #28?
The right of people to choose their own gov't is always there. Gov'ts might violate that right, but the right exists, as rights come from God, not the Gov't.
The power of the government is STILL a product of the consent of the governed - whether they want to admit it or not!
YEP, i support the Sioux, inasmuch as they are a NATION of FREE citizens, doing whatever they WANT to do.
any other questions???
free dixie,sw
Then are you in support of the Lakotah seceding from the United States, as their treaty allows them to do and as they have been trying to do for a while? [see post #28...]
Some think the president and Congress are unAmerican.
Why is this a surprise?
Are Americans citizens that stupid?
Of course this 15% feel that way; they are the parasites of society, pay no income taxes, and enjoy welfare in every form imagineable. Indeed, why would they feel otherwise? They may be useless, but they're not stupid.
Judging by the percentage of waste in all welfare programs they're smarter than the other stupid citizen: the working American who is being financially raped and is too polite to demand meaningful reform.
They didn't join the US, the US joined them....which is exactly my point.
Unless there is a State of Lakota, there can be no succession.
Only something that was part of a whole can leave it. The Lakotas never CEASED being a Nation, so they never became legally attached to the Constitution. They are ONLY bound to the federal government by the terms of their treaty.
I applaud your enthusiasm, but until you understand a few Constitutional facts, you're just dancing around a legal point that doesn't even exist.
Glad to see that you support the right of secession from the United States, per their treaty.
Now, how can we and other FReepers support them in their secession from the United States? What can we do to facilitate the *actual secession* of that country from the United States?
I would like to know what FReepers can do to help the Lakotah accomplish their goal....
LOL!
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.