0 votes

The Rise of States' Rights and the Race Card

This is a good time for States' Rights.

Now that we have an African-American president, it's going to be harder to play the Race Card on state secessionist movements, especially in the South.

And it may be easier to discuss the real Lincoln, and the reality of the War Between the States, as Thomas DiLorenzo has, when people opposed to the Tenth Amendment are foolish enough to dredge it all up. One thing that I noticed from a little over a year ago--when the issue of slavery and the "Civil War" came up with Ron Paul in his Tim Russert interview--was that the authoritarian
establishment has become a little touchy on the topic now, with user-driven Internet. Ron Paul successfully navigated the whole topic without being crucified, or compared to the likes of David Duke. The reason why was because they do not want the myth "the Civil War was a just war" to be shattered--and they knew that if it was argued and debated with entities like the Ron Paul Revolution or Lew Rockwell.com, and splattered across the blogosphere and Youtube, the myth would not withstand the penetrating light of day.

Neither will Lincoln emerge from any such debate unscathed...his feet of clay would be exposed.

This squeamishness may work in the favor of those of us who want to advance and promote Liberty on a States' Rights front. If they want to play the Race Card, they have to deal with the reality of the US "Civil War". If they want to play Lincoln, they have to debate Lincoln.

They don't want an honest debate on this to happen.




Comment viewing options

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

I am currently working on an

I am currently working on an article which will be posted tomorrow regarding sovereignty. In it I will outline its historical significance and provide an in depth look at what it would yield to our cause. I have also amassed solid information which each of us can use to credibly counter any arguments which are made to deter us from reclaiming our right to representation by our individual Sovereign States. I've put a good bit of work into it so I hope you guys are interested.

I would like however to try and help quell those who think that reaffirming "State Sovereignty" would lead to war.

Though I honestly don't think that it would come to secession. I want to cover a few things about it with all of you. Of course with reassertion of sovereignty, the right to wield secession and nullification comes wrapped up in the total package- they are a set. However the right to wield them is not entirely there for the sake of breaking up the Union.
Figuratively speaking secession could be considered a loaded gun which is always carried by the state for defense. It ultimately serves two purposes:

1). It gives the state a strong sense of security when faced with an encroaching government because it knows it has the authority to assert itself.
2.) It is a looming threat to the Federal government which deters it from becoming overly aggressive.

Essentially it is what gives sovereignty teeth.

Obviously many are going to try and compare any movement by the states in reasserting their sovereignty, as leading towards the same situation as the South's "War For Secession". However, that would not be a logical indicator of present day possible outcomes. My reasoning is that the factors involved are too drastically different.
Consider that the war over secession started, not when the first states began to secede but when a huge portion had already broken away. Why? Because the majority of the average northern citizens were in agreement that the sovereign states had the right to do so. It wasn't until newspapers began to be flooded with bureaucrats and corporate entities calling for action lest the ships in the northern harbors rot from lack of southern cotton to export, which is not a hard notion to conceive since the South already held two large harbors in both Savannah and Charleston. It was also warned that without the high tariffs and taxes collected upon southern imports and exports, funding for northern city works would cease to exist. Now ask yourself this question, but keep in mind that at the time our country had no income tax, "how much of the nation's revenue was the south actually supplying prior to the war?" Shockingly the answer is a disproportionate 87 percent!!!
Southern representatives, on numerous occasions over the years, pleaded for the sympathies of the northern controlled Union, yet they found little or none who would listen. So, one by one they began to feel left with only one beneficial solution for their citizens -- secession. How did old "Honest Abe" feel about the sad situation? Well when asked by a reporter why not just let the south go? Lincoln replied, “Let the South go?! Where then shall we get our revenues!”
Convinced of necessity and tempered in greed, the business sector began pushing for action. However, the cause needed something to convince the unstirred average citizens to enlist to fight this battle.Slavery was badge chosen, though many a northern soldier was shocked when he finally crossed the Mason Dixon line because 93% of the people he fought had no slaves in ownership.

The point is that there are stark differences:

1.) The North and the South were two totally different and distinct cultures -- virtually too different countries in appearance even before secession. Thus we did not understand one another and stereotypes abounded which grew animosity. The idea of difference made it easy for bureaucrats to draw a line in the sand.

2.) Because travel was not frequent, as in not usually done by the average citizen, most people's first glimpse of a normal everyday southerner -- and northerner -- was done as the battle was being fought! All previous notions were derived from picture or as the butt of newspaper drawings.

3.) The issue of slavery stirred Northern Christians into moral action, yet though righteous ideological cause, it was based on flawed facts propagated by the Federal government (i.e. the amount of actual slave holders, and the real motive and intent of those who had made the call to arms).

In today's America southern and northern citizens, though still bearing slight differences, have long been intermingling. Travel between states is frequent. Sure there are still stereotypes but with the advent of T.V. culture shock is not so much of a shock any more as it is a tingle. Issues with such huge underline moral undertones, such as the practice of slavery, are not present anymore (at least not here in the states). Plus the states are not as homogeneous in regards to race as they were back then. And it is much harder to vilify a diverse group of coexisting people than a homogeneous one. Also worth considering is the fact that if states were to secede today they would scattered throughout our portion of North America rather than a defined boundary. The opposing army would have to be split and spread out North, South, East, and West! Now take into account that your military is composed of citizens who are from and have family living in these states. Many of our service men and women would not be on board. I would even predict whole bases going AWOL or being commandeered by the officers and troops currently manning them.

I don't believe the populace would be as easily manipulated as in the "Civil War", nor do I foresee it being as bloody, because if a massive amount of states left the union -- the union would basically leave with them. The citizens of those states left would push against their representatives to follow their fellow countrymen. Basically, it would be a massive power shift which forces the usurpers out rather than them peacefully relinquishing their once taken powers. The citizens of America would have the numbers!!

Most tenth ammendment suits are dismissed on ....

the issue of standing.

If the federal government sued a state ...

This obstacle would be met.

You are right ...

litigation would actually solve this issue ...

If the supreme court found in favor of the Feds ...

Then there could be problems ...

Riots and violence ...

I do not condone such activities ...

but if it came to that ...

There are very few things that I would sacrifice everything for ...

This would be one of them.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

Exactly. But I would also state that...

Exactly. But I would also like to go on record as stating that the Supreme Court's utterance that they are the final arbiter of the Constitution is flawed. Their power is delegated by the sovereign states as well, thus their actions are subject to the sovereign state's scrutiny. Unfortunately the Federalist idea of "one nation bound by shackles of iron and steel" has done much to fill the sails of those who call themselves Supreme Court Justices. Obviously we probably agree that much of what is dismissed today as lacking standing, would have been a catalyst for secession during the days of our Founders. Because of that fact it can be argued that with a strong reaffirmation of state sovereignty we would induce more careful readings of the Constitution by our friends on the Supreme Court. Threat = Caution :-)

Though I hate to quote Hamilton, I am quite fond of this one "an entire consolidation of the States into one national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [the Constitutional Convention of 1787] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all right of sovereignty which they before had and which were not, by that act exclusively delegated to the United States."

That is a great quote from Hamilton ...

I have never heard that one before ...

Having said that ...

If the Federal government found it worth while to litigate ...

And they win ...

They will consider it a priority to enforce the finding.

Personally, I think it would be difficult for them not to find in favor of the state, but one never knows.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

I agree with you on all those points.

I just believe in that old southern adage "if you pull a dog's teeth, his bite ain't gonna hurt so bad."

I'm fixing to sign off for the night but I hope you will read the article I'm posting tomorrow regarding sovereignty-- I would like to get your opinion if you feel like yielding it.

Oh, and the Hamilton excerpt was from The Federalist No. 32, quoted in Carey and McClellen, 156.
I just recently went back to reread it for a comparative study with Jefferson and Madison's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (Resolves) and it caught my eye so I jotted it down. Of course Hamilton issued much but believed little, so I typically try to avoid quoting him. Still a good read though.

The two have been linked in the past...

Popular Soveriegnty - (Stephen Douglas; Lewis Cass) - according to this plan, the people who moved into a territory would decide for themselves, by popular vote, whether slavery was to be permitted there.

To speak of popular sovereignty is to place ultimate authority in the people. There are a variety of ways in which sovereignty may be expressed. It may be immediate in the sense that the people make the law themselves, or mediated through representatives who are subject to election and recall; it may be ultimate in the sense that the people have a negative or veto over legislation, or it may be something much less dramatic. In short, popular sovereignty covers a multitude of institutional possibilities. In each case, however, popular sovereignty assumes the existence of some form of popular consent, and it is for this reason that every definition of republican government implies a theory of consent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty

Boy have we strayed far from the above...

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Race and secession

I remember seeing this Zogby poll about secessionism a while back:

http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1531

"Broken down by race, the highest percentage agreeing with the right to secede was among Hispanics (43%) and African-Americans (40%)."

"backing was strongest among younger adults, as 40% among those age 18 to 24"

"a separate question was asked about agreement that "the United States' system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections." Nearly half of respondents agreed with this statement, with 27% who somewhat agree and 18% who strongly agree."

it's a nice thought

Fortune Favors the Bold

but as a rule, state governments are typically more corrupt (and authoritarian) then the federal government even:P

Fortune Favors the Bold

The reason why States' Rights is important

The People of the United States have no sovereignty as an aggregated mass of individuals; they have sovereignty only as citizens of their respective States. While the Federal government has authority to act on individuals as such, the individual can only operate politically through his or her State. There is no other way.

The only way to reign in the Federal behemoth is for the States to stand off against it AS STATES, recurring to whatever inherent, anterior sovereign authority they must invoke to do so--be it remonstrance, interposition/nullification or even secession.

As for those "nationists" who deny the right of secession, the question is really a very simple one. Such a view requires both of the following to be correct AND provably so (and each is just one side of the same coin):

1. That each State, upon ratifying the Constitution, was making an irrevocable delegation of authority and completely renouncing its right to withdraw from the Union. (At the very least, it must be shown that the ratifying States were aware of this and consciously agreed to it!)

2. That in ratifying the Constitution, the People of the United States gave the Federal government the authority to use military force against a State that would secede.

Now, I say to the nationists: Prove these statements!

I have found no evidence for either of these positions in the Records of the Federal Convention, the Ratification Debates, or any other contemporary source. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

On the other hand we have positive evidence AGAINST both views. As example:

Regarding point #1 -- The fact that three States (Virginia, New York and Rhode Island) explicitly asserted otherwise in their Ordinances of Ratification.

And on point #2. The fact that it was proposed in the Federal Convention to give the new government authority to use force against a recalcitrant State--and it was debated--AND IT WAS REJECTED! They would not give the government this power! (This fact by itself should end the argument there and now. So what do the nationists do about it? They simply fancy that the power was conveyed anyway, somehow, without being mentioned.)

We absolutely must reassert the sovereignty of the States, which is really the sovereignty of the PEOPLE.

Well stated! I'm currently writing a article to be published on

Well stated! I'm currently writing a article to be published on this very topic, which I will give us further definitive proof that the states did indeed withhold the right to secede. It also delves into inconsistencies in ardent early Nationists- such as Story or Jay etc.- who's historical stances on state sovereignty are often used as a weapon to bludgeon those who would call up the 10th amendment. I believe most of you will find it very interesting. If your interested look for me to post it within the next 2-3 days.

Thanks again for your excellent post!

Look forward to reading your essay

And thanks for the kind remarks. This is the crux of the people's sovereignty and is of the highest importance--especially now. Best of luck!

Perhaps I should have added a third point that must be proven:

3) That the ratification by each State transferred the primary allegiance of its respective citizens away from their State and to the Federal government.

This is also demonstrably false, but the matter is compromised by the 14th Amendment, which essentially creates a new class of citizenship--making "Federal" citizenship primary and State citizenship merely derivative. This provision appears calculated to make a retroactive legal justification for the War--another reason to emphasize that this Amendment was illegally adopted and should be considered a legal nullity.

good input Kevin, as

good input Kevin, as usual-whole thread was interesting, informative and ofcourse Paulite INTELLIGENT

"Ideas have consequences." Ron Paul

"...the most memorable concern of mankind
is the guts it takes to
face the sunlight again."-Charles Bukowski

states rights is a MAJOR issue

Government is at its best when the power is close to the people. Concentrating it in the federal government does nothing but incite anger and resentment in those who do not agree with its policies and are helpless to change them.
The federal government has overstepped its authority.
If the states had the powers they were supposed to, there would be a place to move to if you did not agree with your state government.
There would be places where like-minded people could live as they want, in peace.

Think about this for example. What if there was a state in the union where you could live that had no taxes on income or property, no restrictions on firearms or overzealous emissions laws? Would you move? In this central government model you have NO choice.

How happy are the people who are now under EU rule? How many of them chafe at laws they have little hope of ever changing?

The secessionist sentiment comes from being under the thumb of a liberal federal government and having little chance to do anything about it. The liberals can see whatever they want in it, but the truth is conservatives are angry as hell.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

The question seems to be

Can states thrive without government funding and could enough states withstand the military if they were sent in to crush resistance.
Obviously government funding comes from taxpayer money and not from some magic "funding tree" (which I unsuccessfully attempted to show below).
These two issues need to be researched.

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

The Constitution allows for state secession...

I believe if it is approved by enough of congress a state can secede.

But in reality that probably won't ever happen.

I think states COULD survive without federal government funding if that state's own government were following what the proper role of a government should be.

Although I suppose if that state were ever invaded by a large foreign country, it could have a problem defending itself.

It's an interesting and complicated issue.

The best solution is for us to scale back the federal government to its proper size so that states don't want to secede.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

The problem I see,just as it

The problem I see,just as it was during the war of northern aggression,is that the federal government will print money to bribe people to join.
The positive side is that the states and people today,have the means to announce to the world their grievances instantly.

------------------------------------------
The government throws the people bones while keeping the treasures of this country.

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16

states rights SHOULD BE a major issue

But it's not. It's a dead letter.

As I tried to explain (unsuccessfully, I think) further below, states no longer have remotely any clout to stand up to the federal government.

The Constitution was designed in such a manner to balance state power with federal power. Power was to be shared in forms of commerce, communications, military, and political means.

Prior to the Civil War, the states rights issue was a fearful one to the federal government.

After the Civil War, it didn't matter much.

After the seventeenth amendment, as I wrote extensively in another forum today, this issue no longer mattered one bit.

After the national highway system was introduced, it became laughable that states rights could EVER become an issue ever again.

States have NO POWER on their own. Can you envision a state government that will hang on to claims of defiance for any longer than it takes for the federal government to threaten to withhold funds? Or send troops?

The last time federal troops were sent in to a defiant state government was well within living memory, with the forced integration of Alabama schools. This absurd show of force to remove an absurd rule is still illustrative. Who was the only state employee standing in the way of those lowly national guardsmen? Right. The governor, alone.

When the governor of a "sovereign" state, in full compliance with the rules laid out by his state government, can be arrested by a noncommissioned federal officer over conflicts between gubernatorial and federal law, and no other state employee comes to assist... It's over, folks. States rights as in issue is dead, dead, dead.

Look at California. The DEA is still arresting legal cannabis dispensers for violations of federal law. The California government is issuing weak and ineffectual pleas of protest. Over an issue where MILLIONS of people agree. There's a lot more cannabis supporters in California than there are Ron Paul supporters and states rights' activists in the whole nation.

Your sentiments are absolutely right. And I do agree that the solution to this dilemma is secession. But not of states. The states are dead.

If you got some state legislature to agree with you (temporarily) they would be ultimately be bludgeoned off by the governor's office, terrified that their bureaucracy was about to collapse from a withholding of federal funds.

The only real right we have to fall back on, which is still recognized to any extent, is the one guaranteed in the second amendment.

This means secession on the level of a community, or of an individual freehold.

I'm sorry. You're right. But your timing is more than a century off. You can't argue the legality of a "right" with the entity that is supposed to grant you that "right". But doesn't wanna.

~jaq

~jaq

Pretty good.

.
Smart writing, but you lost me with the Community and Freehold secession stuff. That would last about five minutes before they got stormed. The FBI has a nasty habit of breaking down doors, setting buildings afire and taking captives.

Kevin I have to disagree, but only with one point

I never knew how "evil" the state's rights issue is to a lot of people, until I started speaking to people about Ron Paul.
* If the state's rights issue is going mainstream I see the MSM pundits say it's only because these rural racists can't handle having a black leader or some other bs* I do hope they keep talking about Lincoln and the civil war though so maybe we all can have a real debate.

More and more everyday people are waking up but alot of "awake" people still that think all is lost. But the fact is that we are gaining ground all over the place even with state's rights.

-----------------------
"Whether you listen to the left side of congress' mouth or the rightside, either way it's the same mouth"

Kevin, please explain to me ...

why would the left NOT see the States Rights as anything more than a racial thing? That is, they would say that indeed, a bunch of racists white people cannot stand or put up with a black American President, and are busy trying to succeed from the Union, --again.

Indeed, I can see liberal cartoonists pulling the old images out in force.

But, maybe I am missing something ...(not an unusual event)...so, please explain it to me as to why the social climate is such that this will not happen?

In Peace & Liberty,
Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

I think the Race Card is

I think the Race Card is going to be less prominent now that the Democratic President is an actual African-American man, instead of a pink-faced white man who panders to a black caucus. It's more subtle now, because he has to perform. Obama has supreme authority and he has to prove himself.

There's going to be a brief "honeymoon" period where nobody will dare criticize Obama, and then criticism will kick in on the issues. He's going to have a tiger by the tail with this economy, especially since all his solutions will only exacerbate the situation.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

I disagree

I think that after a while, the Race thing will become exacerbated to a degree unseen for a few decades. It will be the media's fault, for continuing to emphasize the difference.

When things start going wrong, people will inevitably blame the most visible difference. It won't be pretty.

It's a damn shame, especially considering that he's not so much African American as that he's equally Caucasian. It was a wonderful opportunity to put the whole thing to rest and blame everybody equally going forward. But alas. We couldn't even get that part right.

~jaq

~jaq

OK, let me explain further.

I could always be wrong, of course.

Remember the story of 'The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf'?

What I am saying is that there will be a grace period where nobody uses the Race Card. Then there will be a period when the economy falls even harder, and there is massive usage of the Race Card as liberal Democrats thrash around wildly in defense of their Savior. Then the Race Card will start to lose its punch.

That's when we move our Chess pieces.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

I'll buy that, but only on discount

because I believe that when things go wrong, it will be BOTH sides using that Race Card.

I only hope it loses its punch. That's relying on spontaneous intelligence in the midst of mob hysteria.

Unlike, to my mind.

~jaq

~jaq

Even so

I'm definitely not in favor of hitting the brakes or going on the defensive now that things are beginning to go our way.
Damn the torpedoes.

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

I don't know which way "OUR" way means to you

I'm not sure if you mean the white way? The black way?

I won't claim either race, myself. You all can divvy them up amongst yourselves.

Surely not the "way of economic freedom" unless you're really delusional.

Go ahead, try the "states' rights" way. But don't be surprised if you come away disappointed when the feds brush you off like a mosquito.

~jaq

~jaq

I'm talking about US

OUR WAY!!!

The states are perfectly within their constitutional RIGHTS to do what they are doing and I don't see how the feds have any constitutional power to brush us off.

I

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

They don't need no stinkin' "Constitutional" power!

All they have to do is to threaten to cut funding to roads, schools, or whatever.

Barring that, they can always send in the military.

And no human one of us has any ability to stop them, especially by enforcing some "quaint, archaic right" that is no longer recognized by the folks who believe they granted us that right in the first place.

~jaq

~jaq

You don't know what you're talking about

Without the Federal Government SUCKING the states DRY there would be a lot more MONEY for roads, schools, or whatever.

And if you're scared of the military then you just don't belong here.

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

And yes, I do know EXACTLY what I'm talking about

because how long do you expect those state legislators, the ones who are the secret weapons in your silly plan, to avoid caving in to federal pressure?

I'm not speaking for me, dumb sh*t. I'm speaking for the state government employees you expect to back you up!

Who's the wimp? Not you! You're not the weak links who are guaranteed to cave under pressure!

~jaq

~jaq