REALITYCHECK.ORG ON SECESSION

A response to liberal calls for secession in the wake of the Bush victory:

Let’s check some facts real quick. Which states were the first to threaten secession? The answer is the New England states. In fact, they did it on three different occasions, once even meeting in convention to vote on the matter. The three events that caused these states to consider secession? 1) When the U.S. Congress was considering allowing Louisiana to enter the union; 2) the War of 1812; 3) and when Congress was considering allowing Texas to enter the union (there’s a pattern here: Yankees don’t like Southerners and don’t want them in the union; unless it is to tax them). Oh, by the way, what did the South say about these threats of secession? At the time of these events, it was generally accepted that the American union was just that, a union of sovereign states, not one monolithic state. In general, the calls for secession were met with understanding, and even acceptance. Thomas Jefferson provides a clear, concise comment concerning the right of secession in the American union:

'If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation over Union, I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.'".

All this to simply say that the sudden discovery/new love affair with secession that liberals are spouting is hypocritical. After all, it is mostly liberals that love to declare the South wrong for seceding, how the South was violating the constitution and attempting to overthrow the U.S. government. Let’s get this straight: The South never attempted to overthrow the U.S. government, but was merely getting away from it. In addition, for those that want to write me to say secession over slavery was wrong, the South didn’t secede over slavery, and the reason for secession is immaterial any way. Either the right exists or it doesn’t, and it does exist, no matter what anyone says contrary to the matter. Here’s another quote, this time from James Madison, the 'father of the Constitution,' in Federalist paper No. 45.

'The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.'

In plain terms, if something isn’t expressly stated in the Constitution as the domain of the federal government, it remains a right of the member states of the union. Secession isn’t mentioned, therefore it is a right held by the member states, not something under the control of the federal government. All rights not mentioned in the Constitution remain a right of the member states of the union, whether they are specifically listed (enumerated) or not. Some say secession is no longer a valid option thanks to the Yankee victory in the War for Southern Independence, that the South losing the war makes secession a moot point. That is about as brilliant an argument as saying because a rapist isn’t caught and prosecuted, the victim was having consensual sex. Might does not make right, even if it gets someone their way. The Constitution is clear on the matter, and the fact government refuses to follow our laws doesn’t mean the laws don’t exist (although I know we all wonder some times).

If only the liberals really did push for secession. Aw. . . . The Socialist Republic of California. I like it.
link