The Spectacle Blog
Paul: Secession is American
Some interesting thoughts (as you’d might expect) from Ron Paul on Texas secession hysteria (at least on the part of the media), in an interview with CNN Sucks.
Some interesting thoughts (as you’d might expect) from Ron Paul on Texas secession hysteria (at least on the part of the media), in an interview with CNN Sucks:
The biggest surprise to me was the outrage expressed over an individual who thinks along these lines, because I heard people say, well, this is treasonous 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. I argue that if you had the principle of secession, our federal government wouldn’t be as intrusive into state affairs and to me that would be very good.
We as a nation have endorsed secession all along. Think of all of the secession of the countries and the republics from the Soviet system. We were delighted. We love it. And yet we get hysterical over this just because people want to debate and defend the principle of secession, that doesn’t mean they’re calling for secession. I think it’s that restraining element of secession that would keep the federal government from doing so much. In our early history, they accepted the principles of secession all along.
Paul also addresses the question of whether some banks now making money demonstrates that the bailouts were a “success” (“If a gangster steals money and he’s successful, you don’t celebrate.”).
View all comments (21) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Paul Chesser
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/21/paul-secession-is-american
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 4.21.09 @ 2:20PM
Paul: Secession is American | But As For Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 4.21.09 @ 2:48PM
A few years back there was a delighted cackling from the Left over secessionist talk in Vermont, then under occupation by Bushitlerburton. It was all treated wery lightheartedly. There were no calls for the FBI to investigate dangerous potential lunatics.
My how times change.
Red Phillips | 4.21.09 @ 6:05PM
Ron Paul is the man. Absolutely fearless. The neocons are embarrassingly wrong on the secession issue. As are the Lincoln Cultists, or is that being redundant?
Old Texican| 4.21.09 @ 6:37PM
One thing about secession; it depends upon who secceeds. If Vermont left the Union...duh who would notice.
Conversely, if Texas ever did, lots of yankees would freeze in the dark. (energy supplies and know-how cut in half.)
But, heck, we don't have to secceed, (smile) everyone with a lick of sense is moving here. Boy, talk about a brain-drain, or in our case...a brain-bonus.
Tom Paine| 4.21.09 @ 6:51PM
Secession is a form of treason. I'd say that's un-American.
The Declaration of Independence was a one-shot deal. It did NOT set legal precedent; it did NOT issue permission for any people dissolve its ties with a government; it is considered perfected and subsumed by the Constitution, which is the founding legal document of the United States of America. Ron Paul is just plain wrong on this one.
I for one am a yankee and I'd hate to see Texas go. I love Texas. I don't think I could live in all that heat year round, but the people are friendly, and these people know how to do barbecue like you wouldn't believe. I say we fight to keep them if they try to go.
Michael Lee| 4.21.09 @ 6:54PM
I distinctly remember Lawrence O'Donnell on the McLaughlin group saying that the Blue states should secede from the Red states and Tony Blankley called him out on it. Where was the hue and cry when it came from the mouth of a liberal. All this talk of secession in not very serious but if it did become a reality this NYC Yankee will move south (preferably Texas) to at least be on the sensible God fearing side if not the winning side.
Old Texican| 4.21.09 @ 7:01PM
Tom
I was only kidding. Texas will not seceed. Conversely, Washington DC is in that very process right now trying to dissolve the Constitution and abrogating the Declaration of Independence. No, Texas will simply have to turn off the gas and oil. (smile)
Tom Paine| 4.21.09 @ 7:04PM
Calls for secession are foolish whether they're by a liberal or conservative.
That said, the red states would be in a whole lot of trouble if the blue states divorced them: the doner states (the states that pay more to the federal govt. than they receive back) are mostly blue. (To be fair, Texas is one of the few red doner states.)
Imagine the Socialist Republic of Alaska without the blue states footing the bill!
MLG| 4.21.09 @ 9:28PM
T.P.
The D.O.I. set the precedent, Ron Paul was right. Perhaps you should reread the document because it does set forth that yes when people feel their God Given Rights and Freedoms are being trampled or taken away, and their government, such as it is, isn't listening to their objections, they, The People have the Right and Moral Obligation to dissolve their political ties to that government.
The Constitution, again, is a contract between the States and the Federal Government. The Federal Government, Our Republic, exists at the behests of the States; had the States NOT Ratified The Constitution, There would be NO Federal Government.
The D.O.I is the First Founding document of this Nation that sets out the principals our Federal Republic is based upon. The D.O.I. Was NOT a “one time shot”… Read the Document (emphasis mine):
“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 of 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 shewn 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.”
producerism | 4.21.09 @ 9:30PM
the constitution was signed because the states believed the could secede. they new that whom ever interpeted the constitution (federal government) could do what ever if there were no higher power of secession.
Tom Paine| 4.21.09 @ 9:44PM
MLG --
Be so good as to recall that the Declaration was written 15 years before the Constitution, just to keep proper perspective.
The idea that the Constitution can be simply dismissed if Ron Paul is unhappy with his tax bill is lunacy.
Legally speaking, the Constitution supersedes and subsumes the Declaration. The Constitution does not say, for example, "When at such time as rabble rousers and malcontents will have grown weary of taxation, the Declaration will then be understood as the Law of the Land."
Two founding documents would have been madness. The Constitution was written and ratified. Once that was done, it became law.
By the way, if anyone's interested, this question was settled by the Civil War once and for all, at the cost of three quarters of a million American lives.
Tom Paine| 4.21.09 @ 9:48PM
You are right about one thing. The states could dissolve the Constitution. Even the Constitution provides for it: for example, the states could ratify and amendment declaring the Constitution null and void. The states could agree to let Texas become its own nation, even. But Texas does not have the option of leaving the Union on its own. It isn't a no-fault divorce you can get by filling out a few forms. The states are part of the sovereign nation of the United States.
Red Phillips | 4.22.09 @ 12:19AM
Mr., Paine, first of all the Constitution does not "subsume" the DOI? Are you arguing Declarationist nonsense a la Jaffa and Keyes? (Maybe you are not. I’m not sure.) The Constitution, whatever its faults, is essentially a non-ideological document. It is a series of compromises for the purposes of governing a specific people in a specific place at a specific time. It is not a grand ideological statement. Conservatives in the past, most notably Mel Bradford, recognized the problem with trying to turn the Constitution into an ideological creed and America into an ideological nation.
That said, the right of secession was essentially taken for granted in the early part of the Republic. The New England States considered it due to the War of 1812, for example. Ironically, it was the threat by New York City to secede from the rest of the State that pushed New York toward ratification of the Constitution. Three States (two northern) explicitly withheld the right to secede when they ratified the Constitution.
It is likely true that some of the more federalistic/nationalistic of the Founders found this understanding regrettable, but the document was only ratified by the requisite number of States because it was sold and understood as a “loose compact.” This is really hardly disputable from a historical perspective.
You can stamp your feet that the Constitution does not allow secession all you want because you want it to be so, but the historical record is entirely clear, and it does not support your position. It supports the Paul position. But to equate secession with treason marks you as an ideological statist/nationalist. The modern ideological state is a post French Revolutionary construct and hence CAN NOT be the conservative perspective.
Pete| 4.22.09 @ 12:25AM
The problem isn't the threat of secession--the problem is the tyranny of the federal government. I believe that's treason.
K~Bob| 4.22.09 @ 3:46AM
This crap about "treason" gets old. A process exists to amend the Constitution. If you follow that process to "secede" then you are doing it legally, lawfully, and in accord with the Constitution.
The Civil War (whether anyone is "interested" or not) proved that the law is meant to be followed. So if you want to secede, do it lawfully.
The Declaration is not "subsumed." It exists as the document that enables the Constitution, and also contains an explicit philosophy that the Constitution, and those whose job is to interpret it, must follow: "unalienable rights".
Tom Paine| 4.22.09 @ 7:08AM
The Constitution did not annul the Declaration. It legally completed it. The Constitution became for the country the legal principles upon which the relationship between the people and its government would be founded.
It is true that the states could agree to let a state secede, but that is very different from saying that a state or some states could choose to secede.
I am not a statist. I am someone who was paying attention when I was taught basic civics and US history.
Red Phillips | 4.22.09 @ 8:48AM
"I am someone who was paying attention when I was taught basic civics and US history."
Oh really? Then don't just assert and stamp your feet. Make your case historically. What is the historical basis for saying that secession was not an understood right? Good luck. Especially good luck dealing with the fact that three states expressly withheld the right in their ratification documents.
"The Civil War (whether anyone is "interested" or not) proved that the law is meant to be followed. So if you want to secede, do it lawfully."
K~Bob, the "Civil War" (sic) did not "prove" anything unless you are a believer that might makes right. The South did secede lawfully. The duly constituted representatives of the people voted to secede.
The idea that a state can only secede if the larger whole "lets" it is absurdly statist. It virtually renders the idea moot. Bismarck would agree with you. Authentic American conservatives do not.
Jimbo| 5.5.09 @ 3:04PM
We can debate whether or not secession is legal all day. The real question is why would a rational person seriously consider secession, for Texas or any other state? Taxes are too high? Your presidential candidate didn't get elected? Grow up-- those things don't constitute a valid reason for secession. Those taxes you don't like were passed by the federal legislature, who are your duly elected representatives. You can call Obama a socialist all you want, but he is the duly elected president of the United States.
What do you think would happen if Texas, or any other state really were to secede, peacefully or otherwise? You think the economy is bad now?
jojo | 1.11.10 @ 3:01AM
nike outlet
adidas outlet