Michael Peck criticises Ron Paul on secession

[RPfan1992]

Ron Paul's Secession Blackmail of America Perhaps Ron Paul meant to sound noble when he spoke last week of secession “as a deeply American principle.” Perhaps in his own mind, he pictured himself as one of the Founding Fathers, affixing his signature in florid hand to the Declaration of Independence. And never mind that as George Washington proved when he led a military expedition against Pennsylvanian farmers in the Whiskey Rebellion, the last thing that ex-revolutionaries turned national leaders were prepared to tolerate was secession.

Because the Founding Fathers knew that a nation that permitted secession, without the consent of the entire nation, cannot endure. If secession is a fundamental right that some Texans can petition the White House for secession, then why not honor Atlanta’s petition to secede from the state of Georgia? And if your state can secede at will, then why can’t your county, your town, or even your street declare independence? Where does it stop?

Is there a fundamental right to secede? Sure there is, in the same way that robbing your neighbor’s house can be justified as a fundamental right if you are starving. It’s not the abstract right in question, but when it should be applied. The Founding Fathers revolted because they did not want to be ruled by a king and country on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The American Civil War was fought over states’ rights; even if that was the right to enslave other human beings, it could be at least be said that the issue behind secession was significant.

And what does Ron Paul cite as justification for secession? Obamacare. Medical marijuana laws. All important issues, to be sure, and ones that raise questions about federal versus state powers. But they are not reasons to threaten to dissolve the United States. If they are, then what’s next? Texas seceding over civil rights laws, or evolution being taught in schools, or maybe Obama’s tie is the wrong color?

This isn’t liberty. This is petulance, a political temper tantrum for Americans who didn’t get their way and can’t understand that the price of maintaining a great nation like the United States is that none of us gets what we wish for all the time. Change the laws, yes. Elect politicians who support your views, yes. But don’t destroy the nation because you can’t smoke pot.

htxp://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2012/11/26/ron-pauls-secession-blackmail-of-america/

[Matt Collins]

I don't have the energy to go through this guy's statement and refute it.... he is exceptionally uneducated (or just a propogandist).

[Anti Federalist]

I don't have the energy to go through this guy's statement and refute it.... he is exceptionally uneducated (or just a propogandist).

Of course he's a mouthpiece.

The government/media complex has been ratcheted up to full damage control mode.

[Anti Federalist]

And what does Ron Paul cite as justification for secession? Obamacare. Medical marijuana laws. All important issues, to be sure, and ones that raise questions about federal versus state powers. But they are not reasons to threaten to dissolve the United States. If they are, then what’s next? Texas seceding over civil rights laws, or evolution being taught in schools, or maybe Obama’s tie is the wrong color?

Um, asshole, how about the executive's now well established power to kill anybody he feels like, including American citizens?

And I felt this exact same way under Bush.

Jackass.

[AuH20]

Secession should have been on the table after the interstate commerce travesty. Peck is a fool trying to dilute Ron's Paul's serious concerns as petty grievances.

[Anti Federalist]

Parting Company

by Walter E. Williams

http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams147.html

For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission or simply parting company?

In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

Since Barack Obama's re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitions for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861.

Let's look at the secession issue.

At the 1787 constitutional convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, "No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty."

The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.

New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."

Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil – evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."

The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

There's more evidence seen at the time our Constitution was ratified. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution would have never been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.

The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense."

Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth."

Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."

[Occam's Banana]

Who is Michael Peck ... and why the hell should I care what he thinks about anything?

[Shane Harris]

ugh. So Peck gets to decide what is and isn't a justifiable reason to secede and self-govern. No principles or parameters are set to define what constitutes the line between justifiable and non-justifiable secession, just his very own value judgments. Real intelligent.

[ClydeCoulter]

Who is Michael Peck ... and why the hell should I care what he thinks about anything?

I don't know, don't think I care, either.

[ZakB]

In fairness to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address it could be said that he was referring to an individuals right to self-determination not that of the state; ie the Union soldiers were fighting to free slaves, who were in no way allowed to govern themselves. In other words Lincoln likely viewed a government that allowed slavery to NOT be "of the people, by the people, for the people" since slaves would not be allowed to participate.

Of course Lincoln hadn't issued the Emancipation Proclamation yet nor outlawed slavery in the Union (Though most Union States had), so technically the US wasn't a gov't of and by the people either by this definition, but I believe it was understood at the time that this was the direction the Union was heading and why the South wanted to secede.

[Occam's Banana]

In fairness to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address it could be said that he was referring to an individuals right to self-determination not that of the state; ie the Union soldiers were fighting to free slaves, who were in no way allowed to govern themselves. In other words Lincoln likely viewed a government that allowed slavery to NOT be "of the people, by the people, for the people" since slaves would not be allowed to participate.

Slavery had nothing to do with it. In an 1862 letter to Horace Greeley (editor of the New York Tribune), Lincoln famously said, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." (And if I recall correctly, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates, he specifically & explicitly declared that he was opposed to allowing black people to vote.)

The only thing Lincoln gave a damn about was being President of as large a Union as possible. He didn't give a damn about the slaves, one way or the other. There's certainly nothing in the GA to suggest otherwise - the speech was basically just a lot of eloquent fluff intended to justify the massive death & destruction necessary to preserve Lincoln's (and his cronies') control over as much territory as possible.


Of course Lincoln hadn't issued the Emancipation Proclamation yet nor outlawed slavery in the Union (Though most Union States had), so technically the US wasn't a gov't of and by the people either by this definition, but I believe it was understood at the time that this was the direction the Union was heading and why the South wanted to secede.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves. Slavery in the Union states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware & West Virginia) was explicitly exempted from the EP (as were all Confederate territories occupied by the Union Army at the time the Proclamation was issued). In other words, the EP's alleged "liberation" of slaves only applied to places over which the Union had no actual control.

Furthermore, in his First Inaugural Address (1861), Lincoln declared his support for the so-called Corwin Amendment - a Constitutional amendment proposed by Congressman Thomas Corwin which would have permanently guaranteed Constitional protection for slavery in all the slave states. Had it passed before the war broke out, it would have become the 13th amendment.

The Union was not moving towards the abolition of slavery, and Lincoln had no particular desire to free the slaves. Slavery was a serious issue, but it is not why the Civil War was fought. It sure as hell wasn't why northerners supported the war (northerners were every bit as bigoted & hateful towards blacks as southerners were). And it should be noted that many, many northerners *opposed* the war. Lincoln had thousands of them (especially newspaper editors) tossed in prison without charge or trial. Many thousands more who opposed the war were terrorized into silence & submission. If you were an anti-war northerner, you learned very quickly to keep your mouth shut and your opinions to yourself.

[Anti Federalist]

Lincoln was butcher who didn't give a shit about slaves or anybody else for that matter.

His only concern, and he said it a million times, including in the Gettysburg Address, was that government survive.

If it took killing everybody, but one to boss around, by god, he was prepared to do it.

"Continuity of Government" was invented by him.


In fairness to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address it could be said that he was referring to an individuals right to self-determination not that of the state; ie the Union soldiers were fighting to free slaves, who were in no way allowed to govern themselves. In other words Lincoln likely viewed a government that allowed slavery to NOT be "of the people, by the people, for the people" since slaves would not be allowed to participate.

Of course Lincoln hadn't issued the Emancipation Proclamation yet nor outlawed slavery in the Union (Though most Union States had), so technically the US wasn't a gov't of and by the people either by this definition, but I believe it was understood at the time that this was the direction the Union was heading and why the South wanted to secede.

[TheTexan]

Prohibiting peaceful secession only guarantees violent revolution. Fucking Lincoln.

[robert68]

...
Slavery was a serious issue, but it is not why the Civil War was fought...

Agree on Lincoln's motives, but what about the Confederacy's motives? That war involved 2 parties.

[nobody's_hero]

He's kind of late, ain't he? He must have read everyone else's criticisms of Ron Paul and then copied and republished their arguments, and now he feels smart.

[Occam's Banana]

Agree on Lincoln's motives, but what about the Confederacy's motives? That war involved 2 parties.

Their motives for what? They simply wanted to leave the Union in peace. Lincoln wouldn't let them.

[Chester Copperpot]

Their motives for what? They simply wanted to leave the Union in peace. Lincoln wouldn't let them.

Well if they wanted to leave in peace then why did they attack Fort Sumter?

[Occam's Banana]

Well if they wanted to leave in peace then why did they attack Fort Sumter?

Because Lincoln successfully goaded them into doing so. It was the single stupidest thing that they could have done, and they went and put their foot right in it.

In the north, the idea of going to war over secession was *very* unpopular - until Ft. Sumter. Whoever was responsible for that decision is the man who doomed the CSA.

[A Son of Liberty]

Is there a fundamental right to secede? Sure there is, in the same way that robbing your neighbor’s house can be justified as a fundamental right if you are starving.

What the... Who the... How the...

This is the kind of logic and quality of thinking that a major American magazine publishes these days. THIS is what shapes the political discourse in this country today.

It's almost like I'm not speaking the same language as these people. When you can't even agree on the premises of a discussion, there is precious little chance of actually getting to the point of discussion... why would Mr. Peck want to take the chance that he might fall under the governance of me - someone with whom he couldn't even start a conversation, let alone come to a resolution?

[KingNothing]

"Is there a fundamental right to secede? Sure there is, in the same way that robbing your neighbor’s house can be justified as a fundamental right if you are starving."

Holy Moses! Seriously!?

Secession is a right because it hurts no one. It is nothing more than an individual or group of individuals deciding that they do not want to be bound to another. How on earth is that so evil? Sure, it might be impractical in some or all cases, and it might not result in the best utilitarian ends, but that is for the parties involved in the secession debate to decide.

[KingNothing]

Because Lincoln successfully goaded them into doing so. It was the single stupidest thing that they could have done, and they went and put their foot right in it.

In the north, the idea of going to war over secession was *very* unpopular - until Ft. Sumter. Whoever was responsible for that decision is the man who doomed the CSA.

Even if the South WAS evil and did illegally attack Fort Sumter, who the hell cares? Is anyone here who advocates secession, or for the right to secede, also advocating violence against anyone at all? In fact, most of us who endorse the idea of secession would like to see it happen so that we might LIMIT violence!

[KingNothing]

Prohibiting peaceful secession only guarantees violent revolution. Fucking Lincoln.

Preventing peaceful secession is like being in a relationship and not letting your other-half leave if he/she wants out. Why on Earth would you want to be so intimately involved with someone who does not want to be with you? How is that a worthwhile situation? America is relatively lucky that only 700,000 people died during the short civil war we endured. It could have gone on much longer and resulted in even more death.

[A Son of Liberty]

Preventing peaceful secession is like being in a relationship and not letting your other-half leave if he/she wants out. Why on Earth would you want to be so intimately involved with someone who does not want to be with you? How is that a worthwhile situation? America is relatively lucky that only 700,000 people died during the short civil war we endured. It could have gone on much longer and resulted in even more death.

Exactly. This whole, "oh, you're just mad because you lost an election" line is idiotic. Why the hell do I have to have a reason that is acceptable to you if I want out of a relationship?

(Answer: because I WANT AND NEED YOUR STUFF, so sit down, shut up, and LIKE it.)

ETA - I'm not mad about the election. My philosophy hasn't won an election since... ever. :P

[FindLiberty]

Agree on Lincoln's motives, but what about the Confederacy's motives? That war involved 2 parties.

War motives? In my mind, the North initiated the use of force with the South.

The Southern states wanted to freely trade with industrialized England (supply cotton for their established industrial machinery). Lincoln probably was worried about the South getting too cozy with England so soon after the previous war of independence! He also needed to help (return favor to) his industrial buddies, railroad and banker friends in the North (He wanted to collect tax/tariff/regulate the South so that it could not freely choose overseas competition when selling their raw materials, cotton in particular.)

The shallow draft steamboat design suddenly allowed full use of the Mississippi River and allowed the South to float away from railroad dependence and also sail off to find new raw cotton customers other than just the newly industrializing North.

The South tried to part ways peacefully over these issues, but the North (federal) was obsessed with control, regulation, tax, tariff, and free trade interference.

The line in the sand was crossed when the South said, “We won’t be forced to support you and we don’t need you, so F’off already!”

That kind of secession talk really sets tyrants off, like poking a bee hive with a stick. To Lincoln and his buddies, the South looked like a whole bunch of escaping slaves the needed to be re-captured, contained and taught a lesson!

How soon we forget.

Today, I see no reason to doubt this kind of treason won’t eventually give the ‘ole tree of liberty a good waterin' again.

[A Son of Liberty]

War motives? In my mind, the North initiated the use of force with the South.

The Southern states wanted to freely trade with industrialized England (supply cotton for their established industrial machinery). Lincoln probably was worried about the South getting too cozy with England so soon after the previous war of independence! He also needed to help (return favor to) his industrial buddies, railroad and banker friends in the North (He wanted to collect tax/tariff/regulate the South so that it could not freely choose overseas competition when selling their raw materials, cotton in particular.)

The shallow draft steamboat design suddenly allowed full use of the Mississippi River and allowed the South to float away from railroad dependence and also sail off to find new raw cotton customers other than just the newly industrializing North.

The South tried to part ways peacefully over these issues, but the North (federal) was obsessed with control, regulation, tax, tariff, and free trade interference.

The line in the sand was crossed when the South said, “We won’t be forced to support you and we don’t need you, so F’off already!”

That kind of secession talk really sets tyrants off, like poking a bee hive with a stick. To Lincoln and his buddies, the South looked like a whole bunch of escaping slaves the needed to be re-captured, contained and taught a lesson!

How soon we forget.

Today, I see no reason to doubt this kind of treason won’t eventually give the ‘ole tree of liberty a good waterin' again.

So, superimpose a moral issue over an economic cause and, voila, claim the moral high-ground to invade, destroy, and kill?

Sounds about right. I wonder how it will play out this time...

[robert68]

Their motives for what? They simply wanted to leave the Union in peace. Lincoln wouldn't let them.

In the Declaration of Causes (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) of 4 of the first 7 states to secede, failure of protection of the institution of slavery was the predominate grievance. South Carolina, the state for Ft. Sumter, was one of those 4 states. Also, the Confederacy didn’t permit free states.

[robert68]

Preventing peaceful secession is like being in a relationship and not letting your other-half leave if he/she wants out. Why on Earth would you want to be so intimately involved with someone who does not want to be with you? How is that a worthwhile situation? America is relatively lucky that only 700,000 people died during the short civil war we endured. It could have gone on much longer and resulted in even more death.

States aren’t individuals. There was never universal agreement within the states that seceded to secede, far from it. And among other property right aggressions, the Confederate Army, like the Union Army, fought the war with conscripts and inflated currency.

Also, in the American Revolution, a third of the population of the 13 colonies supported secession with Britain, a third opposed, and a third were indifferent. And that war was waged with military conscripts, currency inflation, higher taxes, and price controls, at the federal and state levels.

[Occam's Banana]

In the Declaration of Causes (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) of 4 of the first 7 states to secede, failure of protection of the institution of slavery was the predominate grievance. South Carolina, the state for Ft. Sumter, was one of those 4 states. Also, the Confederacy didn’t permit free states.

So what? None of that gives them any motive for wanting to go to war against the north.

[robert68]

So what? None of that gives them any motive for wanting to go to war against the north.

To be free to better protect the rights of the "slaveholder" is certainly a motive.

[Cody1]

I don't have the energy to go through this guy's statement and refute it.... he is exceptionally uneducated (or just a propogandist).


My first thought was, why does this person hate liberty so much?

[Occam's Banana]

To be free to better protect the rights of the "slaveholder" is certainly a motive.

The fact that the south desired to defend itself against northern aggression cannot reasonably be construed as meaning that they wanted to go to war against the north.

The south did NOT have any motive for engaging in an aggressive, invasive war against the north. They did NOT want war.

Lincoln & his bunch DID have motives for engaging in an aggressive, invasive war against the south. They DID want war.

[robert68]

The fact that the south desired to defend itself against northern aggression cannot reasonably be construed as meaning that they wanted to go to war against the north.

The south did NOT have any motive for engaging in an aggressive, invasive war against the north. They did NOT want war.

Lincoln & his bunch DID have motives for engaging in an aggressive, invasive war against the south. They DID want war.

Both the Confederacy and Union were aggressors against individual property rights in my book. And fighting a losing battle as the Confederacy did only made matters far worse for most Southerners than they otherwise would have been.

[Occam's Banana]

Both the Confederacy and Union were aggressors against individual property rights in my book.

They were. Absolutely. I agree. But that has nothing at all to do with my point.


And fighting a losing battle as the Confederacy did only made matters far worse for most Southerners than they otherwise would have been.

However true this may be, it's got nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread.

[Danan]

If secession is a fundamental right that some Texans can petition the White House for secession, then why not honor Atlanta’s petition to secede from the state of Georgia? And if your state can secede at will, then why can’t your county, your town, or even your street declare independence? Where does it stop?
The only thing this tool got right in his diatribe was his conclusion regarding micro-secession. If you can't force Texas to be in the union, you can't force a city to be in a state, or an individual and his property to be under jurisdiction of a local government, if he secedes.


Is there a fundamental right to secede? Sure there is, in the same way that robbing your neighbor’s house can be justified as a fundamental right if you are starving.
I can't even imagine how deranged one's mind has to be, in order to come to that conclusion. "You have a right to peacefully end a relationship that starts to be to your detriment. Thus, it follows that you can robb other people." - What?!

[robert68]

The fact that the south desired to defend itself against northern aggression cannot reasonably be construed as meaning that they wanted to go to war against the north.

The south did NOT have any motive for engaging in an aggressive, invasive war against the north. They did NOT want war.

Lincoln & his bunch DID have motives for engaging in an aggressive, invasive war against the south. They DID want war.

----



Mobilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#The_War)
As the first seven states began organizing a Confederacy in Montgomery, the Confederate Congress authorized the new nation up to 100,000 troops sent by governors as early as February. The entire US army numbered 16,000, however Northern governors had begun to mobilize their militias in response to southern state militias at Lincoln's election.[121] After Fort Sumter, Lincoln called out 75,000 three-month volunteers for Federal service, then by May, Jefferson Davis was pushing for 100,000 men under arms for one year or the duration, and that was answered in kind by the U.S. Congress.[122]



The Lincoln led US army that warred with the Confederacy didn’t exist before the Confederacy's authorization of 100,000 troops, the taking possession of federal properties in states like South Carolina, and the Confederate army’s attack on Ft. Sumter.



Originally Posted by robert68

Both the Confederacy and Union were aggressors against individual property rights in my book.

They were. Absolutely. I agree...

If you mean that, then you should have a big problem with the authorization of 100,000 troops for the Confederacy, when before that there had been only 16,000 troops for the entire US.

[Occam's Banana]

The Lincoln led US army that warred with the Confederacy didn’t exist before the Confederacy's authorization of 100,000 troops, the taking possession of federal properties in states like South Carolina, and the Confederate army’s attack on Ft. Sumter.

If you mean that, then you should have a big problem with the authorization of 100,000 troops for the Confederacy, when before that there had been only 16,000 troops for the entire US.

Why the hell are you badgering me about this? I repeat - NONE OF THIS has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with ANYTHING I have said.

So the south made preparations to defend itself against the north. SO WHAT?

So the south was nowhere even close to being a libertarian utopia. SO WHAT?

NONE OF THAT has ANYTHING to do with the fact that the south WOULD NOT have gone to war against the north IF THE NORTH HAD ALLOWED THEM TO SECEDE.

[NewRightLibertarian]

NONE OF THAT has ANYTHING to do with the fact that the south WOULD NOT have gone to war against the north IF THE NORTH HAD ALLOWED THEM TO SECEDE.

Yeah, we're making an anti-war argument here and not a pro-south one. The institution of slavery was barbaric, but it doesn't justify a war that killed hundreds of thousands considering the slaves could have been freed peacefully like they were in every other country.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Mike Peck Advertising Director at Forbes Magazine
United States Publishing

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mike-peck/7/454/b

[robert68]

Why the hell are you badgering me about this? I repeat - NONE OF THIS has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with ANYTHING I have said.

So the south made preparations to defend itself against the north. SO WHAT?

So the south was nowhere even close to being a libertarian utopia. SO WHAT?



NONE OF THAT has ANYTHING to do with the fact that the south WOULD NOT have gone to war against the north IF THE NORTH HAD ALLOWED THEM TO SECEDE.

Below are your words that I first replied to:


Slavery was a serious issue, but it is not why the Civil War was fought...

I stated that for the Confederacy it was a significant issue; that's my read of history. You never showed it's otherwise.

[Occam's Banana]

Below are your words that I first replied to:


Slavery was a serious issue, but it is not why the Civil War was fought...
I stated that for the Confederacy it was a significant issue; that's my read of history. You never showed it's otherwise.

*sigh*

I have repeatedly stated (and do so again now for the umpteenth time) that the Civil War was fought because the North refused to allow the South to secede and go its own way.

The South's *motives* for secession are irrelevant to this point.

That the South seceded in order to avoid onerous tarriffs or preserve the institution of slavery - or so that they could worship the Devil & eat Christian babies - has nothing to do with it.

So I repeat: Slavery was a serious issue, but it is not why the Civil War was fought.

Slavery is one of the reasons the South seceded. The South fought the war because the North refused to permit the South to secede peaceably. The South had no motive for fighting the North except for this fact.

If the North had allowed the South to go its own way, the Civil War would NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. I really don't see what's so difficult to understand about this.

[TheTexan]

Yeah, we're making an anti-war argument here and not a pro-south one. The institution of slavery was barbaric, but it doesn't justify a war that killed hundreds of thousands considering the slaves could have been freed peacefully like they were in every other country.

I would actually be ok with the war if it was fought for slavery. But of course it wasn't. Lincoln's inseparable union set a precedent that shaped this nation's history into the tyranny it is today.

It's funny, and also greatly irritating, how apparently the motives of the North have changed over the years, from the aggressive enslavement of the South, to a noble goal of freeing humans from bondage...

Most Americans idolize the man that set us on the path to the tyranny we have today... fucked up country this is...

[vita3]

"Secession" aside, I certainly agree that Republican elected officals need to make efforts to improve this nation & not just be nay sayers.

[robert68]

..

[Occam's Banana]

The Thought Controllers Hate Secession (http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-thought-controllers-hate-secession/)

So Tom Woods takes them on ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPn-vYH2eYc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPn-vYH2eYc

[truelies]

In Reality, Americans of the 1780's should have stuck with the Articles and never ratified the current Constitution.

[truelies]

I would actually be ok with the war if it was fought for slavery. .............................

Why? What business did a yankee State having butting in the affairs of the South? Yankees had plenty in their own States to clean up- say the use of immigrant factory workers as disposable tools to be tossed out when they broke. Southern plantations did not do that. look up the stats- a serf growing cotton in the South had a greater life expectancy than a nortern industrial worker in 1860.

[awake]

Secession is the absolute worst thing you can do to a statist. They will hurl themselves by the dozen on your attempt to even discuss leaving slavery. It is heresy absolute. For those who worship the state, it is the equivalent of saying there is no God called state. The heretic must be put down! Statist are fundemental religious fanatics in every sense; their religion is simply the nation state.

[TheTexan]

Why? What business did a yankee State having butting in the affairs of the South? Yankees had plenty in their own States to clean up- say the use of immigrant factory workers as disposable tools to be tossed out when they broke. Southern plantations did not do that. look up the stats- a serf growing cotton in the South had a greater life expectancy than a nortern industrial worker in 1860.

I agree, that strategically and pragmatically the North going to war to free the slaves may not be a good idea. Morally though, I have nothing against people voluntarily choosing to go to war to free people from slavery (which of course isn't why they went to war, and it wasn't voluntary, but I hope you get my point)

[whippoorwill]

Is there a fundamental right to secede? Sure there is, in the same way that robbing your neighbor’s house can be justified as a fundamental right if you are starving.

Uhhh..No, robbing anyone for any reason is not a "fundamental right". This guy has a weird sence of what rigths are....he must be a statist. wow.

[matt0611]

Uhhh..No, robbing anyone for any reason is not a "fundamental right". This guy has a weird sence of what rigths are....he must be a statist. wow.

Yeah, lol, what the heck?

So why did we have a right to separate from Great Britain? We certainly weren't "starving". Compared to the vast majority of the world at that time we were doing pretty great. So what gave us the right to leave? If you asked any lawyer in Britain he would have told you it was illegal to secede as we did.

[TheTexan]

Secession is the absolute worst thing you can do to a statist. They will hurl themselves by the dozen on your attempt to even discuss leaving slavery. It is heresy absolute. For those who worship the state, it the equivalent in saying there is no God called state. The heretic must be put down! Fundemental religious fanatics in every sense; their religion is simply the nation state.

Indeed. Mentioning secession is akin to a slave conspiring to escape. It's simply not allowed.

[jay_dub]

Lord Acton, a British statesman well known for his declaration that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, in a November 4, 1866 letter to Robert E. Lee wrote, "I saw in States Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy....I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The material prosperity of the North," said the delegates to Georgia's secession convention, "was dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"As to the cause of the war," claimed antebellum Georgia businessman Mark Anthony Cooper, "it is chargeable not to the abolition of slavery, which was only an incident and exciting cause, but to the capital of the country seeking to control the government through its indebtedness and to foster itself by exceptions and immunities and by profits on the currencies made and controlled by it. War alone could furnish a pretext for doing what it desired."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That slavery was the cause for Lincoln's War rings about as true as a 77 year old Doctor defending secession so we can all smoke pot.

[Occam's Banana]

Well if [the South] wanted to leave in peace then why did they attack Fort Sumter?


Because Lincoln successfully goaded them into doing so. It was the single stupidest thing that they could have done, and they went and put their foot right in it.

In the north, the idea of going to war over secession was *very* unpopular - until Ft. Sumter. Whoever was responsible for that decision is the man who doomed the CSA.

...



"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. " ~ Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

[robert68]

Yeah, lol, what the heck?

So why did we have a right to separate from Great Britain? We certainly weren't "starving". Compared to the vast majority of the world at that time we were doing pretty great. So what gave us the right to leave? If you asked any lawyer in Britain he would have told you it was illegal to secede as we did.

Indeed, and taxes going to Britain were from 1% to 2% of national income (depending on where you lived). Massachusetts was the only colony subject to the Coercive Acts, and this was in response to the destruction of millions of dollars worth of tea in Boston Harbor. Only a third of the colonists wanted to secede.

[sailingaway]

who is this person?

why do we care?

But secession isn't only about the south. The NORTH EASTern states wanted to secede to get away from the slave owning states, as well. Were THEY neoconfederate?

[ClydeCoulter]

Secession is a tool as well as a procedure. To say it has anything to do with the civil war is to say that a butcher knife is used only for purposes you disagree with.

[jay_dub]

The RIGHT to secession is just as important as the act itself. A government that explicitly acknowledges the right to secession is less likely to fall prey to the abuses of power for which the only remedy is secession. Should abuses occur anyway, the People have a built-in peaceful alternative.