Talk of secession
Thread starter MadMo44Mag
MadMo44Mag
Ft.Worth
I ran across this on another forum.
Sorry Alan slow day at TGT !
What y'all thoughts on this?
Hell I don't need any more reasons just more folk's willing to take a stand for the America we once had.
In light of the recent interest in secession, there are some fundamental points we need to understand in order to counter those who claim that this time-honoured remedy against tyranny is un-American and even treasonous.
The voluntary union (or confederacy) of States known as the United States was born of a secessionist movement against Great Britain, and our Declaration of Independence is, at base, a secessionist document. How, then, can secession legitimately be called un-American?
When our Founding Fathers broke the bonds of political association with the British Empire in 1776, the former colonies became free and independent States constituting thirteen separate communities, each asserting its sovereignty. This arrangement received confirmation in the Articles of Confederation (1778) and the Treaty of Paris (1783). Americans themselves, as well as their British foe, acknowledged that each State was a separate and sovereign entity.
The sovereignty of the separate States is an important issue in understanding how the United States was formed under its Constitution of 1787-88. When delegates met in Philadelphia in May 1787, they came as representatives selected by the people (i.e. citizens) of their respective States. The people of the States did not give their delegates any authority to make binding agreements; rather, they could only discuss proposed changes to the Articles of Confederation. Any changes to the Articles would become effective only if ratified in convention by the citizens of the separate States.
The result of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was, of course, the U.S. Constitution. However, the document was not binding until nine of the thirteen States ratified it for themselves. That happened in 1788, and those nine States entered into a compact (or contract) with each other and, by doing so, created the political union known as the United States (or, more accurately, the States United). Four States, for a time, remained outside of the union and thus were not bound by the compact. Eventually, though, all thirteen States ratified and united.
It is important to note that no State (or States) could answer for another State. Each State acceded to the compact by its own sovereign will. Moreover, all of them understood that they might secede from the compact by those same means-by a ratifying convention of their citizens or representatives.
Nowhere does the Constitution forbid a State from seceding from the union. In fact, the Tenth Amendment (contained in the Bill of Rights of 1791) expressly confirms that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power to force a State against its will to remain in the union is absent among the powers delegated to the general (or federal) government; therefore, the right of secession is reserved to the States, or more precisely, to the people of the States.
Some of the New England States threatened to secede several times before 1860 (e.g. 1803, 1807, 1814, and 1844-45). At no time did the Southern States deny them this right. However, when a number of Southern States seceded in 1860-61, Lincoln and the Republican Party went to war to prevent them from exercising their Constitutional right. Simply put, Lincoln placed the forced "unity" of the States above the Constitution itself, and this action set him in opposition to the principles of the American Founders.
Northern victory in 1865 marked the end of true Constitutional government in America. In its place, the American Empire now defines the limits of its own power without serious regard to the Constitution. Formerly free and sovereign States have become little more than administrative provinces of an all-powerful central government in Washington, DC.
Without a serious challenge to its authority, which the acknowledged right of secession is, our government will not reform itself. We are not free people if we are not free to leave.
Our colonial ancestors acknowledged what our present government (and popular opinion) denies: that, at some time, dissolving our political bonds might be a necessary and proper course. That time came in 1860-61, and The League of the South believes it has come again.
Secession, as Thomas Jefferson acknowledged, is the assertion of the inalienable right of a people to change their form of government whenever it ceases to fulfill the purposes for which they created it. Under our Constitution this should be a peaceful remedy. The decision of a State or States to withdraw peacefully from a political association is not revolutionary or rebellious. On the contrary, the government that is no longer responsive to its people, a government that denies its people their inalienable rights, is revolutionary. The right of secession is never more necessary than when it is denied.
Some say that secession is impractical and/or unattainable. It certainly is both as long as the people of the States remain ignorant of it as a remedy to tyranny handed down to them by earlier generations.
We, the people of the States, still have the weapon and the legitimate power of reform (sovereignty). The only thing we lack is the collective will to wield it.
Dr. Michael Hill, President
The League of the South
GM.Chief
Well-Known
Love it...and despite all the people who say "to secede would be horrible", I am all for it and I hope that it happens. That's the kind of change we need.
Texan2
South of San Antonio
Be careful what you wish for....
You say that like you believe I haven't thought good and hard about it for the last several months. I do realize that there are many out there who just want to jump on the new chant of the week, but there are alot of people who know how to way pros and cons and who have figured out that there really is no alternative if we wish to keep our rights as they were laid out for us at the creation of the constitution. If you "wish" to stay with the union, well maybe at this point you should be careful what you wish for...the current political agendas sure don't look good IMO.
GM.Chief said:
I am not sure I follow your post. If I wish to stay with the union I should be careful what I wish for?
You are correct in that the current administration will in no way adhere to the constitution. But I don't believe that a state should secede because our guy lost the presidential election. The pendulum tends to swing far one way and then the other. I do fear that we have slowly let our rights become eroded to the point that we are now too impotent to do anything about it. I hope that history proves me wrong. But most talk about the south in 1860 and talk about seccesion today and there are few if any parellels. I believe that secession IS legal, just poorly advised.
Although none of the MSM outlets made it clear, Governor Perry stated the "there were alot of Texans that wanted to secede" not that he wan't to secede or that we should secede. He was trying to underscore the point of the Tea Parties, that many people are very dissatisfied with state of affairs we have reached and the heaping helpings of socialism fromthe new Administration are making more people feel that way.
Note: The previous eight years formed the foundation for this dissatisfaction, with its Democrat-Lite spending and agenda.
My attitude towards seceding is mixed.
IF 35 or so of the 50 states where to stand up and declare we have had enough, this could cause the Fed to take notice or at least make more people notice how their freedoms have really been trampled on.
Unlike when Lincoln sent Federal troops into the south and started a civil war the causes where very much different.
Abe was faced with a problem our fore fathers had not clearly thought through when the constitution was written. Many of them were slave owners and "Rights" did not include slaves.
"Today we recognize slavery as a moral issue. But in the early nineteenth century, it was seen as an economic issue first, moral issue second. A series of legislative actions, most notably the Missouri Compromise of 1820, had been enacted by Congress to put limits on the propagation of slavery, but compromise with northern and southern interests was always kept in mind. The South had an economic interest in the spread of slavery to the new territories so that new slave states could be created and the South's political influence would remain strong. The North had an interest in limiting the spread of slavery into the new territories for both purposes of controlling Southern political power AND support of the moral issue." - ( Causes of the Civil War: A Balanced Answer
by Gordon Leidner of Great American History)
Today is a whole different ball game.
Today "We The People" want to retain our rights, freedoms and liberty's when the Fed now wants to tell us what "THEY FEEL" is right and just, not what the constitution states or guarantees. The Fed wants to force free states and men to accept the whimsy of the current political flavor as THEY see fit and remove the individual states rights as it impedes their will.
I feel if more states stand up, force more state rights issues into federal court that at some point folks will start to open their eyes and see how "WE THE PEOPLE" have allowed socialism into our country and government.
Obama's ideas are nothing new. He simply has taken advantage of political and world events to openly push socialism in this country under the guise of CHANGE.
Now for the TEXAN in me, I have to say let's secede as we could easily become self sufficient as a single country. The constitution gives us that right; my only question is if we did secede would the Fed respond with force and would the general public be willing to take the necessary steps, sacrifices and possible loss of life to archive the secession?
OK, back to you guys!
DCortez
Houston, Cy-Fair
MadMo44Mag said:
IF those 35 could bit%& slap the West Coast and New England, things would be better.
DCortez said:
Thanks DC - I just got in trouble on another forum for that exact comment in regards to the current administration!!!
So here I figured I have a little more tact.
Bob Loblaw
texascop2 said:
our guy lost the presidential election.
wait... what guy was that?
As jeff said, Perry isn't talking about secession, he's talking about people who are talking about secession. So I don't know what there is to talk about. Leaving the US is not a plan, it's seems like the absence of a plan. If there were someone out there with some idea of what that should be and how to get it there, yea, fine, but otherwise it's just blowing off steam.