Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Parting Company
Source:
TownHall.com
URL Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/walt ... /28/parting_company/page/full/
Published: Nov 28, 2012
Author: Walter Williams
Post Date: 2012-11-28 19:26:45 by Abcdefg
Keywords: None
Views: 8689
Comments: 21
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."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Abcdefg (#0)
(Edited)
Here is the problem with parting company... Let's suppose that you could build a viable country out of red counties. Let's also suppose that a viable country could not be land locked. Look at the map: You could build two viable red countries: 1.) Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon, Idaho, the California Central Valley, Nevada outside of Las Vegas, Utah, and Wyoming. The country would have access to the Pacific in southern Oregon. 2.) Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, southern Illinois, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and part of Texas. The country would have access to the Gulf of Mexico. Everyone else is screwed.
It's way too late for secession to work. This government would make what the North did to the South in the 1860's look like a walk in the park. Best to wait for this government to inevitably collapse as all empires do. Then build upon the wreckage.
It's way too late for secession to work. I agree. Best to wait for this government to inevitably collapse as all empires do. Then build upon the wreckage. No. A total collapse will most likely result in more government (see the Great Depression) and even dictatorship (see the Weimar Republic and so many others).
After the Soviet Union collapsed, the member states were able to gain their independence. I'm hoping it will go like that.
Best to wait for this government to inevitably collapse as all empires do. Then build upon the wreckage. You guys are just sorelosermen. You couldn't keep a new country together even if you could get more than two of you to agree on anything. You will bicker among yourselves until the inevitable happens. And then just bitch about needing a Reagan or whatever long, dead leader was in vogue.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
That didn't result from an sudden economic collapse. The Soviet Union was on life support for years and it just finally just passed away. Half of Americans are on the government dole. If you think the moochers are going to stand by and watch their government goodies disappear after an economic collapse, you are smoking something pretty good. What will really happen is endless riots, looting, and violence, followed by a strong man taking power. Just watch.
Not really. I find the secession issue to be of historical and Constitutional interest. The majority of the voters have spoken and we who disagree must (and will) live with the outcome. I haven't advocated or desired an overthrow, secession or assasination.
Always the optimist? You may be correct in your prediction.
Always the realist...
The majority of the voters have spoken and we who disagree must (and will) live with the outcome. I haven't advocated or desired an overthrow, secession or assasination. Yep, it worked so well the first time. You do know states that secede don't get to keep the lands and Fed facilities owned by the rest of us.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Excellent article... which I already posted here. ;)
The ultimate result of Democrat party politics: Aren't you socialists PROUD???
Well, I didn't mean to double post. The article I reposted was from the 28th and I quit looking prior to this date.
There will be no secession. We both know that.
The wait won't be long. First we will lose our sovereignty to World Government,Inc,and then the inevitable will happen. The remote government of elitists will push too hard and punish disobedience too brutally,and people all over the world will revolt against the far-away elite Corporate Royals. In a few places the citizens will be brutally repressed,and in a few others the local globalist leaders will see the handwriting on the wall and will lead the insurrection in order to protect their own lives and power. This may take 100 years to reach full bloom,but it will happen.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Say WHAT? What exactly is it that you own other than a whine and a entitlement personality? AND....,to add an historical note,the first succession worked really well until parasites like you came along. It resulted in us gaining our freedom from English rule.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
What exactly is it that you own other than a whine and a entitlement personality? AND....,to add an historical note,the first succession worked really well until parasites like you came along. It resulted in us gaining our freedom from English rule. You would have been fighting on the side of the redcoats anyway. Yep, your state doesn't own the military installations and other facilities located there providing for it's protection and paid for by the rest of us..... or even it's own national forests. To think it should be able to confiscate them is why in reality you are the true commie. Surprise! surprise! PS The biggest recipients of welfare and entitlements are......corporations!
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
You would have been fighting on the side of the redcoats anyway. Everything you do and say is ass-backwards. I'm betting you were born feet-first and from the wrong orifice. YOU are the one that wants everybody to be subject under Royal rule. Yep, your state doesn't own the military installations and other facilities located there Well,yeah,the states do own the property. The feral government just controls the property. providing for it's protection and paid for by the rest of us..... You are the most consistent idiot on the internet. THE MILITARY INSTALLATIONS ARE NOT THERE TO PROTECT THE STATE. THEY ARE THERE TO PROTECT THE NATION. or even it's own national forests. The states sold the national parks and forests to the feral government to raise revenue. Typical political move by idiot politicians who are sometimes even dumber than their supporters. They saw it as "free money",and anybody with the IQ of a turnip knows there is no such thing as free money. To think it should be able to confiscate them is why in reality you are the true commie. You are related to Yu-Tard,ain't ya. PLEASE tell me your mother didn't have any other children. PS The biggest recipients of welfare and entitlements are......corporations! Nice try,but as usual,you are wrong again. First off,corporations aren't people,and only people get welfare. You,being you,will no doubt say you are right because corporations are artificial people,so they draw artificial welfare. One of the smallest groups of people that do draw welfare are farmers. I seriously doubt they draw a total money amount larger than the parasites who are multi-generation welfare recipients,but they surely draw a LOT more per person than the public housing crowd. Once again this is due to the Dims using feral tax money to buy the votes of the rich farmers that control midwestern states with early primaries,like Iowa.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Are you saying that corporations as a part of select industries do not receive subsidies from the government? Oh my, you are one naive fool.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Of course not. The difference is that unlike you,I am not so stupid I don't know what a subsidy is. I agree with subsidies in some cases,and disagree with them in others. This depends on the circumstances. If a company is poorly ran and in danger due to their own faults,then let them go under. On the other hand,if it is a industry vital to the country and/or the company/companies are failing because of some boneheaded globalist law passed by congress,a subsidy may be justified and fair. BTW,here's a hot tip for you. Companies and corporations produce things for sale,which in turn benefits everybody of all classes all up and down the line because they provide jobs,spending money that is spend buying good produced by other companies and thereby saving jobs at other companies,etc,etc,etc. All all the while all up and down the line,creating a lot of tax revenue that goes to the treasury to provide welfare money for parasites like you and others like you,who only produce more parasites that are a even bigger drag on the working class and the nation.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
On the other hand,if it is a industry vital to the country and/or the company/companies are failing because of some boneheaded globalist law passed by congress,a subsidy may be justified and fair. I didn't put a value judgement on it. I only said that they get welfare in the form of subsidies, which equals communism in your world.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
You don't even understand YOUR world,so what makes you think you are qualified to speak about mine?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#2. To: jwpegler (#1)
#3. To: Abcdefg (#2)
(Edited)
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#4. To: jwpegler (#3)
A total collapse will most likely result in more government
#5. To: Abcdefg (#2)
It's way too late for secession to work. This government would make what the North did to the South in the 1860's look like a walk in the park.
#6. To: Abcdefg (#4)
After the Soviet Union collapsed, the member states were able to gain their independence. I'm hoping it will go like that.
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#7. To: mininggold (#5)
You guys are just sorelosermen
#8. To: jwpegler (#6)
What will really happen is endless riots, looting, and violence, followed by a strong man taking power. Just watch.
#9. To: Abcdefg (#8)
Always the optimist? You may be correct in your prediction.
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#10. To: Abcdefg (#7)
Not really. I find the secession issue to be of historical and Constitutional interest.
#11. To: Abcdefg (#0)
... 
Shari Doyle, before and after her salvation by Democrat operative Janet Reno.
#12. To: Capitalist Eric (#11)
Excellent article... which I already posted here.
#13. To: mininggold (#10)
You do know states that secede don't get to keep the lands and Fed facilities owned by the rest of us.
#14. To: Abcdefg (#2)
Best to wait for this government to inevitably collapse as all empires do. Then build upon the wreckage.
#15. To: mininggold (#10)
(Edited)
You do know states that secede don't get to keep the lands and Fed facilities owned by the rest of us.
#16. To: sneakypete (#15)
(Edited)
Say WHAT?
#17. To: mininggold (#16)
#18. To: sneakypete (#17)
First off,corporations aren't people,and only people get welfare. You,being you,will no doubt say you are right because corporations are artificial people,so they draw artificial welfare.
#19. To: mininggold (#18)
Are you saying that corporations as a part of select industries do not receive subsidies from the government?
#20. To: sneakypete (#19)
(Edited)
I agree with subsidies in some cases,and disagree with them in others. This depends on the circumstances. If a company is poorly ran and in danger due to their own faults,then let them go under.
#21. To: mininggold (#20)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]