Calling for secession? Really?

[LA Ute]

This is from Peter Wehner writing yesterday in one of my favorite blogs, Commentary magazine's Contentions:

First, Republican Rand Paul wanted to revisit the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now Representative Zach Wamp, following the lead of Texas Governor Rick Perry, wants to revisit the Civil War. "I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government," Wamp said during a recent interview with Hotline OnCall.

Representative Wamp praised Perry, who first floated the idea of secession in April 2009, for leading the push-back against health-care reform. "Patriots like Rick Perry have talked about these issues because the federal government is putting us in an untenable position at the state level," said Wamp, who is competing with Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam and Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey in an August 5 GOP primary race. . . .

This kind of talk from Wamp and Perry is stupid and reckless. For one thing, it is evidence of a stunning inability to distinguish different historical moments. For some people, the times in which we live don't appear to be dramatic enough. . . .

Beyond that, though, is the fevered mindset that would suggest that "separation from this government" may be necessary. Do Wamp and Perry have any grasp of what they are talking about? Do they understand that the South seceded from the Union to maintain chattel slavery as a way of life? Or that Lincoln, our greatest president (and the first Republican president), waged the Civil War—which cost America around 620,000 lives (the equivalent of around 5 million lives today)—to keep the Union whole and free? Are Wamp and Perry really suggesting we take up, in a serious manner, the issue of secession again? Because of ObamaCare?

I am no shrinking violet when it comes to criticizing Barack Obama. . . . But to argue that differences in policy ought to lead us to consider secession is lunacy. It also shows a (presumably) unwitting contempt for America, for its history, and for its role and purpose in the world. . . . America is a sublime achievement—an "inestimable jewel," in the words of Lincoln. Lawmakers who speak about "separation from this government" are doing a great disservice to themselves, to their party, and to their country. They ought to cease and desist, now, before they embarrass themselves further.

Hear! Hear!

[katoa]

This kind of talk from Wamp and Perry is stupid and reckless. For one thing, it is evidence of a stunning inability to distinguish different historical moments. For some people, the times in which we live don't appear to be dramatic enough. . . .

Beyond that, though, is the fevered mindset that would suggest that "separation from this government" may be necessary. Do Wamp and Perry have any grasp of what they are talking about? Do they understand that the South seceded from the Union to maintain chattel slavery as a way of life? Or that Lincoln, our greatest president (and the first Republican president), waged the Civil War—which cost America around 620,000 lives (the equivalent of around 5 million lives today)—to keep the Union whole and free? Are Wamp and Perry really suggesting we take up, in a serious manner, the issue of secession again? Because of ObamaCare?

I am no shrinking violet when it comes to criticizing Barack Obama. . . . But to argue that differences in policy ought to lead us to consider secession is lunacy. It also shows a (presumably) unwitting contempt for America, for its history, and for its role and purpose in the world. . . . America is a sublime achievement—an "inestimable jewel," in the words of Lincoln. Lawmakers who speak about "separation from this government" are doing a great disservice to themselves, to their party, and to their country. They ought to cease and desist, now, before they embarrass themselves further.

Hear! Hear!

:bsflag:

Yeah, right, Texas wants to secede because of Obamacare. It is just another slow erosion of every right we fought for in our independence.

The Founders would roll over in their graves at the abuses of power in our Federal Government today - they make the actions of the Crown look saintly by comparison.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

DOES NOT THAT SPEAK FOR ITSELF? HAS THE NATURAL LAW CHANGED BECAUSE THE FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES ACCEDED TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEMSELVES TO CONSTITUTE A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

Even the tyrant Lincoln declared, at least out of one side of his lying mouth:

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Again Lincoln stated: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."


From the Texas Secession FAQ, which states the case pretty well:

Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts"—including Abraham Lincoln himself—may have ever said).

Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."

Likewise, each of the united States is "united" with the others explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."


Q: Didn’t the outcome of the “Civil War” prove that secession is not an option for any State?

A: No. It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve. The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce. Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government" (without ever explaining exactly how "the government" was "threatened" by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern control.

The South's rejoining the Union at the point of a bayonet in the late 1860s didn't prove secession is "not an option" or unlawful. It only affirmed that violent coercion can be used—even by governments (if unrestrained)—to rob men of their very lives, liberty, and property.

[Katy Lied]

which cost America around 620,000 lives (the equivalent of around 5 million lives today)

I've never seen body count inflation like this. I know money and economic values are inflated for current conditions, but lives? It doesn't make sense. So if a couple tragically loses their first born child, and then has 6 more, would that be the equivalent of losing 6 teenagers later on?

[LA Ute]

I've never seen body count inflation like this. I know money and economic values are inflated for current conditions, but lives? It doesn't make sense. So if a couple tragically loses their first born child, and then has 6 more, would that be the equivalent of losing 6 teenagers later on?

I think Wehlen is expressing the percentage of the U.S. adult males lost in the Civil War in 2010 terms, kind of like comparing 1865 dollars to 2010 dollars. Just another way of showing how costly the war was, in perspective.

[Katy Lied]

I know what he was doing. Seems silly. Shall we inflate the number of astronauts lost in the Columbia space shuttle tragedy to 8, now that our population has grown? And Lincoln's assassination--that's like... the equivalent of 2 presidents being killed today?

Somehow, I think it detracts, when the number of lives lost is reduced to a fraction and then pumped up to a modern day number based upon birth rates. I can fully appreciate 620,000 deaths.

But I've already spent way too much time on something that probably was a throwaway for Weiner. And has nothing to do with his point.

[Indy Coug]

Is there a constitutional recourse for secession?

[Moliere]

I know what he was doing. Seems silly. Shall we inflate the number of astronauts lost in the Columbia space shuttle tragedy to 8, now that our population has grown? And Lincoln's assassination--that's like... the equivalent of 2 presidents being killed today?

Somehow, I think it detracts, when the number of lives lost is reduced to a fraction and then pumped up to a modern day number based upon birth rates. I can fully appreciate 620,000 deaths.

But I've already spent way too much time on something that probably was a throwaway for Weiner. And has nothing to do with his point.

I'm sure there is a Body Count Index (BCI) somewhere that shows the yearly rate of increase in war deaths

If anything at all, the number of deaths should be decreased. We lose less and less soldiers in war due to technological advancements. I'm sure Uncle Ted could find some article to support this ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war"]United States casualties of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]), but take for instance the wars in Afgahnistan and Iraq and the war of terror (maybe they are the same thing?). Although there are many who have died, it is far less than Vietnam and Korea and we've been in Afgahnistan for what, 9 years?

Today wars are waged by technology (they were back then to a degree but not like today) and casualties, especially non-combat casualties are far fewer.

[Moliere]

Oh, and one more thing. Rick Perry is a nutcase and very few in Texas support the idea of secession.

[Uncle Ted]

I've never seen body count inflation like this. I know money and economic values are inflated for current conditions, but lives? It doesn't make sense. So if a couple tragically loses their first born child, and then has 6 more, would that be the equivalent of losing 6 teenagers later on?

Or if someone is tried for a murder that happened 20 years ago would he be tried for a double murder?

[Indy Coug]

Oh, and one more thing. Rick Perry is a nutcase and very few in Texas support the idea of secession.

I get a kick out of people like Katoa that portray our Founding Fathers as the ultimately Enlightened who all agreed exactly how our country should function and then after reaching such an accord, immediately put those principles into flawless action.

Katoa's Founding Fathers didn't exist: they are a romanticized fabrication championed by political malcontents that tend to also back political candidates that are even more nutty and inept than the jokers that actually get elected. Even if perchance they were to succeed in seceding from the union, their Utopian society would collapse upon itself quicker than the Millerites.

[Moliere]

Or if someone is tried for a murder that happened 20 years ago would he be tried for a double murder?

Makes me wonder what the casualty number is up to on the war in heaven. That happened something like 4.6 billion years ago so it's got to be up to a gazillion by now.

[Uncle Ted]

Oh, and one more thing. Rick Perry is a nutcase and very few in Texas support the idea of secession.

Yes, just the fact that Rick Perry went to TAMU should tell you something...

[DU Ute]

I get a kick out of people like Katoa that portray our Founding Fathers as the ultimately Enlightened who all agreed exactly how our country should function and then after reaching such an accord, immediately put those principles into flawless action.

Katoa's Founding Fathers didn't exist: they are a romanticized fabrication championed by political malcontents that tend to also back political candidates that are even more nutty and inept than the jokers that actually get elected. Even if perchance they were to succeed in seceding from the union, their Utopian society would collapse upon itself quicker than the Millerites.

Very well put, Indy. (That felt weird)

[Uncle Ted]

Is there a constitutional recourse for secession?

Texas, when it "merged" with the USA, did put in an exit clause in the agreement but that expired with the civil war as I understand it. Texas, however, still has the right to split into five states. It might be interesting to have 10 US senators from the Great Republic of Tejas.

[fusnik]

The GOP scares me.