Saturday, May 02, 2009

Let's Talk Secession, Shall We?

I'm putting this up just to fry the wankers at Folkie and CogniDissipated.

...there has never been a real question about the legitimacy of secession. It was the principle that led the 13 colonies to fight to get out from under the British crown in the war of 1776. It was the principle implicit in the 13 states ratifying the Constitution in 1789, made explicit in the ratifying documents of New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island. It was the option understood to be available to all states from that time until 1861, and considered by New England states at the Hartford Convention of 1814. No one put forth a compelling argument that secession was unconstitutional, and the fact that the US Congress in 1861 debated and failed to pass a law against it proves that it was not illegal even in that year.

Lincoln, of course, argued both sides to the middle, proving that he was a role model for most Presidents following him (see LBJ, Tricky Dick, and Clinton for the more egregious jerks).

...so far as reason has to do with it, Lincoln had previously argued that “any people anywhere… have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better,” and in his First Inaugural held that “if a majority deprives a minority of a clearly written constitutional right,” that would justify revolution.

Our author appears to have been at a TEA Party, because he has this part down very well, indeed:

...[secession] is something that should rightly be considered, thoughtfully and thoroughly, by many of the states and regions that see themselves as illegitimately being pushed around and dictated to and mishandled by a central government that has, over the last few decades, proven itself to be undemocratic, unresponsive, corrupt, inept, and unduly intrusive, at times unlawful and unconstitutional, and essentially unable to govern at the geographic and populational scale to which we have grown

Amen, brother! Preach it!!


WOLVERINES!!

7 comments:

grumps said...

If the SFB political leaders of the secessionist states want a quick taste perhaps they can do with out the Federal installations within their borders.

Texas and Georgia without military swag would be much smaller economies. Let 'em walk their walk.

John Foust said...

As Grumps points out, a secession would be very enlightening to see all the ways these states are entangled with the Federal government.

The Wolverines were fighting a Red force far from home. I wonder how the Texans would fare against the US forces. Would Obama attack, and how? Who could we waterboard?

TerryN said...

If Texas seceded they'd have to shut down the bases, and NASA, to make room for the thousands of businesses trying to escape socialism in the remaining 49.

Dad29 said...

"...how the Texans would fare against the US forces"

You're making an assumption, John.

John Foust said...

Which assumption? That the Feds would attack to reclaim property they believe belongs to the Union? I mentioned that.

Short of secession, as commenters at the link you provided pointed out, it would be interesting enough to see even a single State dare to pull back from Federal handouts.

The link doesn't mention the recent proposal from the libertarians to withdraw en masse to New Hampshire, then hijack it. There are other forms of legume who've talked of creating states that float on international water. Maybe you can do it on a barge, like the casinos.

Dad29 said...

Well, yah. It would be interesting to see what happens if a State (or 10, or 20) pulled out.

No reason that Texas and Georgia should be the only ones.

And you're still making an assumption, John. It's also possible that the possession questions can be resolved for cash.

Texas still has some "tea" left underground--and the refineries, too.

By the way: Fed handouts are rarely "free." States have to pay to get the "free" money.

John Foust said...

Yes, that's what I was talking about... Fed handouts come with all sorts of strings. It would be enlightening to see how the Feds and a state would try to settle those financial issues, assuming they don't inspire each other to simply come to blows or blow-ups. Think they'd still want to leave if they learned the true size of their debt obligation to the US of A? Would Texas want to create new checkpoints along a doubled border?