1 vote

How does one respond to this post on secession

Link: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/hbo/2012/nov/20/ron-paul-stan...

And the post:

nic on November 20 at 9:15 a.m.

"False equivalency. During the American Revolution, we didn’t secede like a state today would secede from the Union.

Back then, we weren’t states a part of the Kingdom of Great Britain. We were colonies. Today, we are states a part of the United States of America.

Back then, we had not parliamentary input. We didn’t have any elected representatives representing us within the British government. Today, we have elected congress representing us in the Senate and the House of Representatives. This group is made up of citizens from each of the 50 states. Including Texas. Ron Paul should know better - he served there off and on since 1976. Just because he has less than 0.3% in having bills he sponsored become law doesn’t mean that his state wasn’t represented.

A population within a state wanting to form their own nation separate from the USA is not the same thing and what we did during the American Revolution. Now, if he was trying to build an argument in favor of allowing American Samoa, Puerto Rico, The US Virgin Islands, or Guam to secede - then he’d have a valid point."

The dbag the proceeds to call Ron a kook but I'm not familiar enough with secession to respond myself.

edit: here is another link to another bogus article: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/ron-paul-secession-147...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Dilorenzo (as well as Rockwell and Rothbard) -- sadly

Rothbardians argue that the South did NOT secede owing to Slavery.

You will prove them false by your own simple investigations

They use this as the argument for State-Rights and Self-Gov't (the exact phraseology used by The Antebellum South to justify Secession in 1860)

Read all the way down BEFORE you reply otherwise if you take up their "side" you'll sound stupid

Claims made by DiLorenzo, Rockwell, Woods, and Rothbard.

1) The South Seceded because of a violation of state-rights that had NOTHING to do with the continuance of slavery (DiLorenzo's et al Rothbardians argument)

2) The South did not want to expand slavery into the Territories (DiLorenzo's argument)

3) The South was "winding down" slavery and it would have "ended" on its own (DiLorenzo's argument)

4) That Lincoln attacked the South 1st (DiLorenzo implies this to be true)

5) That Lincoln tried no other means to end slavery prior to the Civil War (DiLorenzo's argument is that all other western endings to slavery were done peacefully).

All of DiLorenzo's arguments were either made by Rockwell or Rothbard prior to his "Lincoln" books or supported by Rockwell and Woods (et al) afterward.

This is horse-apples AND I'll prove it.

You'll need to use Google:

1) "Declaration of Causes"

---Gives each of the Southern States "causes" for seceding
---All of them mention slavery

2) "Secession-Commissioners"

3) "Confederate States Constitution"

4) "Fire-Eaters and Breckenridge"

---Mentions Slavery 28 times

Here's a sample:

Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.[38]

Here's some LOGICAL arguments why it WAS bout slavery:

#1 Over 80% of the profit-drivers of the South was from Slavery

---We argue on DP why countries go to war all the time
---Countries War to either continue, expand, or reduce the costs of their profit-drivers

#2 There are over 75 images of slavery on the Southern States Currency -- It's on their money people!!!

#3 The South owed HUGE debts to Banks of England and France (Rothschilds) -- Blasted Factorage system.

---We argue the EVILS of corporatism all the time on DP and corporatism is nothing without debt-financing......Should we not consider the Southern Debt and Dependence on a nearly 100% Slave-based economy or should we "imagine" an alternate motivator?

Ask which 'states' were involved

in the English Civil War of 1642-51. Wasn't that a secessionist movement?
Seems this guy isn't seeing the colonists as Britians but has in his mind that they are 'Americans', albeit American Britains. Tell him the the English Civil war may have taken down the notion of the 'divine right of kings', but all it did was transfer that right to a bumbling Parliament that believed wrongly it could divine policy for a people across an ocean. That's what's happening now - elitists in The Swamp (DC) believe they can set whatever policy they want on an entire people. Representation died a long time ago.
A while back I watched a program about 'mad' King George and that fool prince Charles was one of the people giving opinions on him and Charlie said that had George made a trip to America and let the people get to know him a bit the would have never wanted to leave the Empire. What a shmuck.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

The idiot answered his own question

"The determination of the American colonies to leave the British Empire was not "secession." Secession implies that both sides entered into an voluntary arrangement that one side now chooses to leave."

Umm....the United States is a voluntary arrangement. What a moron.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I would ask when and where I consented to be a US citizen.

But I am in favor of individual secession, and self-governance. I was born where my parents chose, I did not consent. They filled out a birth certificate which declared me a US citizen, I did not consent. I was sent through an education system which indoctrinated me on how lucky I was to be a US citizen but I was never given an option to be anything else. I have been told my whole life that I am a US citizen and so have dutifully checked the box when asked, but I was never informed about what I was agreeing to, never warned of the risks, never given any alternatives. Without discussion of risks, benefits and alternatives, there is no informed consent, ask any surgeon. So, blah, blah, blah about Representatives and such, they do not serve me, they have never served me, and I do not consent to their ruling over my life.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.