If At First You Don’t Secede, Try, Try, Again!

by CzechRebel on November 29, 2012

in Barack Hussein Obama, CzechRebel (blog admin), education, Pennsylvania, secession, U.S. Constitution

If at first you don't secede, try, try again!
From Founders Tradin’ Post

If you are happy being one of Obama’s slaves, you don’t need to read beyond this sentence. On the other hand, if you actually believe in the principles upon which the United States were founded (note: that IS correct grammar!), maybe it is time to follow the brave patriots in Louisiana, Texas, and elsewhere who are opting out.

Texas: Secession sounds better every day
From Zazzle

Obviously, the very idea of secession has been smeared with a bad name in some circles. But in those same circles, it’s only the secession of states from the US federal government that is considered taboo. Those same people applaud the breakups of Yugoslavia, of the Russian Empire, of the British Empire, and of Czechoslovakia, and the secession of Taiwan from Communist China, of the US from Great Britain, and so on and so forth. But they consider secession from the US to be a monstrous idea, and they heap ridicule, scorn, and abuse on anyone who suggests it.

Why is that? Simple, it is the army of government propagandists who call themselves “public school teachers.” Somehow, they convince unsuspecting students that even though it was just fine for the Colonies to leave Great Britain under King George III, it was and is wrong for any state even to consider leaving the US. They blasphemously idolize an evil tyrant who invaded the seceding States with troops who murdered and raped innocent civilians (of all colors) and destroyed their property, leaving the survivors to starve.

So, we have this horrible misconception that leaving a sinking ship is a bad idea! The United States is a sinking ship. 2016 is too late, far too late. Obama and company are enslaving us and it won’t get any better! Now is the time to leave.

Sign the petition for your State. Free States will be those that leave. Slave states will be those under Obama’s dictatorship.

White House ‘secede’ petitions reach 675,000 signatures, 50-state participation

GOPUSA: Parting Company

Walter Williams

By Walter E. Williams

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.”

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.


{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

1 DonM December 5, 2012 at 4:48 pm

:evil: Or perhaps we use the Union of those opposed to rampant statism, fraud in elections, overweening taxation, and unconstitutional overreach of federal power into Housing, Education, Agriculture, Labor, Medicine, Insurance, and Environmental Protection, to prevent defunding of the constitutional powers such as the Army and Navy and cut back on the unconstitutional powers.

And impeach the rascals. :evil:

2 1389 December 5, 2012 at 5:12 pm

@DonM,

Please read this article to see why it will not be possible to salvage the entire Union (I assume you intend that to mean all fifty States under the current federal government) by regaining control over it and reestablishing limited government under the US Constitution:

In which 1389 dons her prediction hat for 2012-2013 and onward

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: