Ron Paul: Secession is a Good Principle, He's Wrong
Secession is not an American principle; it is an unpatriotic fantasy clung to by spoiled minorities, who are out of touch with reality.
Paul's history is faulty. The Hartford Convention was widely unpopular and at the time, considered treasonous. It helped to put the nail in the coffin of the Federalists. Do Republicans really want to be associated with the Federalist party?
Another example of a delusional, unpatriotic, minority is the 19th century planter Southern planted class. They believed, both before and after the Civil War, that they had a right to secede. They thought they should be able to secede to protect their property rights, their right to own human beings.
Paul also claims that we should be happy about secession talk, like we were happy about republics seceding from the Soviet Union. So that is analogous to Texas seceding from the United States?
What Paul does not talk about is the fact that the main concern of most of the Founders, even into the second and third generation, was the success and preservation of the Union. There were always elements that believed otherwise, but are these the forces of history we should look to?
I love the good doctor, but I think in this case, he's made a misdiagnosis.
Subscribe to the Slam
Posts
You, sir, have obviously not read the Declaration of Independence, which uses a few more words to state that "we" seceded from Great Britain for a number of reasons.
And as far as history is concerned, Dr. Paul's view of history is much more accurate than yours is on this matter.
I like Ron Paul and supported him last election season. I would have voted for him if he would have wanted his name on the ballot. I oppted for Bob Barr instead. I do not support him on this. This is why I don't run around saying I'm a Republican. I agree with many Republican views but this is crazy. These are the same people that think Obama is going to come to their door and take their guns. The secession and constitutional convention talk is a grab for attention. It helps give Rush and Hanity something new to yell about. I watch Hanity often and enjoy him a lot. I'm not a blind follower of him, though. I think these secessionist need to get a grip and settle down. If they seceded, Texans will be fighting for county rights in a few decades. Then Texas will transform into 40 different countries. Go Pens!
Tom, I love your phraseology that secession "is an unpatriotic fantasy clung to by spoiled minorities, who are out of touch with reality." But personally, I think the idea of secession is just silly, and that they have no intention of doing so but are just trying to make a point...
a point that they are apparently allowed to make since it doesn't violate the constitution.
Anyone remember Vermont's threats to secede a couple of years ago? Not the governor, but there were grassroots groups threatening to push for secession. It might (or might not be) interesting to compare the two situations as well as the public reaction to the two. I do remember they weren't taken seriously, more like....oh what a bunch of whining potheads, just move to canada. VT doesn't have the land mass, the fighting history, nor the same political swagger of Texas. Actually, responses to both seem pretty similar....libs now berate texas for such a suggestion and conservatives berated Vermont for the same.
Kent,
Thanks for posting a link to the Declaration of Independence. If I need to check that though, I'll just pull it out of my pocket, along with my pocket Constitution (just in case you aren't sure, yes I do carry them around with me wherever I go:)
You know I like Ron Paul. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree with him when he is so clearly incorrect. In other words, don't get pissed just because I criticized your guy.
When the Governor of Texas threatens secession, it is bad for our country, not good. That is why Paul is wrong. The historical precedent that Paul was referring to existed, in that there is a ton of secession in our history. That doesn't mean it was a good thing.
Ever since we decided to stop being "The Colonies" and start being America, the great men and women of our country knew we had to stick together. After signing the Declaration of Independence Ben Franklin said that we must all hang together or we will assuredly hang separately.
Benji,
Well put. I like your comparison of the people who talk about secession and the people who think President Obama is going to take their guns.
We have a lot of Ron Paul supporters on the Slam. And even people who aren't followers of him, still like him and some of his ideas.
Liz,
Thanks, I'm glad you liked that phrase! The idea is a bit silly, until the crazies start acting on it. I think I remember that. There is a movement in Alaska too, that the Saracuda and the Toddmeister were a part of.
The reason I thought this was kinda a big deal, was that the governor of the state was talking about it several times and that then someone I respect said that it was a good thing.
Since the governor said it multiple times he has to think that it plays well politically, and that freaks me out.
It just got real!!!
anyway..
I want to start this off by saying that I was a Ron Paul guy. I would consider myself a libertarian in most cases. Now, I am a huge student of the American Civil War. I took interest in the 5th Grade when we started to learn about it and really continued it into the present. We are starting in to year 17 of that interest. The reason that the southern states started to secede from the union was a states rights issue. The a few of the southern states felt that the federal government was over stepping its bounds via the 10th Amendment. The issue at hand was that the federal government wanted to make slavery illegal. Some of the southern states that still had vested interest in the slave market said that it should be up to the states to decide those laws. There attitude was if you want to do that fine, but there is no constitutional law saying that you can do this. I am not sure what is required to secede from the union. I think it is a 3/4th majority vote in that state. Regardless when that happens and the Confederacy was formed the nation was divided. And on April 12, 1861 Fort Sumner was fired on and after 5 years of fighting 2/3rd of the male population was gone. A lot more were physical wounded or mentally wounded from poor medical knowledge that opiates were incredibly addictive. At the time slavery was a dieing trend anyway. Abraham Lincoln knew that he if the nation stayed divided it would fail totally. Both sides. England was helping the South with supplies and was told that if the South won England would be given some land in reparations. If this was to happen the country would be gone and England would have eventually reclaimed the South as well. Hope you all enjoyed your history lesson. That one was free.
Now I will bring it up to today's time. Secession is still a legal and fully constitutional option. Its not a good one though. Its like Atomic weapons, something that was used once and I hope never gets used again. I kinda like Governor Perry. I think his little bit of talk was to try to wake up some folks in Washington that are very disconnected from the common person, and I support that. If this sparks healthy debate on the role of federal vs state, then great. However if this starts to divide this great nation into us against them, then that's very bad.
Please folks (Tom, Kent) lets discuss, not attack.
@ Tom: My apologies for coming across more blunt than I had intended. My first comment on this post was at the end of a very long and irritating day.
Anywho, my point is that the way I read the post was that you were condemning Gov. Perry for exercising his right of free speech. I agree that if we are not united, our country will not last. However, our federal government is no longer responsible or responsive to we the people, at least the vast majority of the time. And if it takes Gov. Perry talking about secession to wake Washington up, then so be it.
Speaking of Washington living in its own little fairy tale land, I believe that the biggest problem with the federal government is that it is full of politicians, both elected and appointed. We need to return to the days when those in politics were statesmen, not politicians.
@ Ed: Thanks for the excellent history lesson, and for reminding us that we are here to discuss.
Kent,
Thank you for bringing up the concept of statesmen. You are exactly right. We need statesmen not politicians. I am reminded of a certain gentleman every time I hear the word statesman. He is a retired Army vet and banker. I met him when I joined a local service club. At one of our meetings, he took a few minutes to talk about the concept of statesmen. It was great timing because it was just before the November election. What did I learn? I learned that we all can be statesmen. We need to be statesmen because statesmen put the country before everything else. Decisions should be made for the benefit of our country, not for any other reason. Statesmen also have class, something that is clearly missing in politics today. My friend is definitely a statesman. Hopefully I can be one too.
I'm on the band wagon Kent. Let's start a revolution!
Kent,
Hey man it's ok, we all have those days!
I would never dream of denying the governor his right to free speech. But a big part of free speech is being able to disagree with what others say, especially those in positions of authority and power.
Thanks for the apology though. I appreciate it.
Kent and AJ,
I'm with you we need more statesman. Also, how about more citizens and fewer slugs!
I've been saying all along that the politicians shouldn't be in politics....
:-p
A state or states cannot secede from the Union. The Civil War and the US Supreme Court Case of Texas v White, 1868 said so.
It so happened that the State of Texas held US treasury bonds worth over ten million dollars, which came due during the war. The US treasury refused to pay since the Treasury said that Texas did not exist as a US state at the time and the bond contract was null and void. The court ruled otherwise.
The courts said that a state or states couldn’t secede from the union by this reasoning: “And when these Articles (of the Declaration of Independence) were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?”
In ruling that the Treasury must pay the State of Texas for the value of the bonds the Court ruled:
“Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.”
“Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.”
Post a Comment