by Michael Naragon
On April 15, while many Americans were filing their taxes or their extension requests, thousands rallied across the country to protest the perceived abuses of the Constitution by the federal government. In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry spoke at a rally which featured angry cries of “Secede!” from the crowd of Lone Star citizens.
“We’ve got a great union,” Perry, a Republican, said Wednesday. “There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.”
Perry’s comments have received harsh criticism from Texas Democrats, including State Rep. Jim Dunnam, who claimed that talk of secession was akin to supporting racial division and anti-American sentiment.
“Talk of secession is an attack on our country,” Dunnam said. “It can be nothing else.”
Journalist Geraldo Rivera called the governor’s statements “grossly irresponsible” and said Perry was placing himself in position for possible impeachment. Others have claimed that Perry was trying to make a national impression to set up a potential run for the presidency in 2012.
On Friday, The Dallas Morning News reported that a poll of 500 Texans showed 31 percent believed they had the right to secede, and 18 percent would vote for secession if given the opportunity. The Morning News stated that those who believed Texas had a right to secede were “incorrect” in that belief, using the outcome of the Civil War as proof of the illegality of secession. Or, as they might have said, might makes right.
While news outlets like the Morning News have used the fact that 82 percent of Texans would not vote to secede as proof that the people had no real interest in the idea, the fact that 18 percent would do so today should at least beg more discussion. Are the conditions right at the moment for another attempt by the states to opt out of their Constitutional contract? No.
However, decisions made by the Obama administration in the coming weeks, months, or years could increase that potentiality, as a case can be made that the conditions in the 2009 version of the United States are at least similar to those in Antebellum America.
No taxation without representation?
In many of the interviews done at the Tea Party assemblies on Wednesday, participants were asked about their reasons for rallying. In a now-infamous interview by Susan Roesgen from CNN at the Chicago Tea Party, protesters explained to Roesgen that they weren’t being represented in Washington. She scoffed at the idea, claiming that they had plenty of representation.
What Roesgen failed to consider was that only 30 percent of Americans supported the $700 billion bailout of banks by George W. Bush, according to an AP poll on September 26, 2008. That bill passed with little Congressional resistance, despite the fact that nine out of every ten phone calls that were made to Washington by the voters at that time urged lawmakers to vote against the bill.
On Feb. 17, President Obama signed a second earmark-filled bailout that spent $787 billion more and increased the national debt yet again. Obama also directed hundreds of billions to be used to solve the mortgage crisis, and his budget will, if passed, expand the federal deficit even more. All of the spending bills have met with popular resistance, the most remarkable examples being the national Tea Party rallies on February 27 and April 15.
In 1832, the state of South Carolina rejected two national tariffs, an act which President Andrew Jackson equated with treason. This bold action came as a result of the Northern industrial states, influenced by urban areas and domestic goods, imposing their will on the less represented Southern states, who relied on an agrarian economy and exported much of their produce, including cotton, to England and elsewhere.
A high tariff, or tax on goods imported from other countries, benefited the industries in the North by insulating them from foreign competition. In the South, however, their exports were now subject to retaliatory tariffs imposed by their trading partners overseas. In short, the North was using its power of ideological majority in the Congress to force economic hardship on the South.
Eventually, a compromise was reached regarding the tariff question, but the incident led South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun to begin rallying support for secession from the Union. In 1850, in a speech Calhoun wrote but was too ill to read, he described the reasons for Southern discontent.
“At that time [of the writing of the Constitution] there was nearly a perfect equilibrium between the [North and South], which afforded ample means to each to protect itself against the aggression of the other; but,” Calhoun continued, “as it now stands, one section has the exclusive power of controlling the government, which leaves the other without any adequate means of protecting itself against its encroachment and oppression.”
Many of the thousands attending Wednesday’s Tea Parties see the liberal-dominated government as equally oppressive, affecting their future incomes and those of their children in the same way that the Northern states affected the futures of those in the South. As Roesgen pointed out to the Chicago protesters, Americans do participate in a representative government. However, the “we won” attitude of the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Obama administration, and the speed in which they appear to be fundamentally changing the United States, regardless of what the Constitution may or may not allow, has caused many to feel their representation is minimal at best.
Our increased indebtedness to China, Saudi Arabia, and other nations, and the fact that the Federal Reserve, according to an Federal Open Market Committee report on March 18, has begun printing money to monetize the debt, has left many Americans feeling powerless in a nation that continues to spiral into economic difficulty. Also, members of the Fed, as some Tea Party supporters have correctly asserted, are not popularly elected representatives.
Is secession illegal?
The Dallas Morning News and their comrades in the American media have repeatedly asserted that secession is obviously illegal as they discussed the statements Gov. Perry made in Austin Wednesday. One-third of Texans disagreed. Who’s correct?
The Morning News explained that the outcome of the Civil War determined the legality of secession. In other words, the successful use of force made the law. It would be interesting to discover if the editorial staff of the Morning News would also support the legality of China’s occupation of Tibet or the Sudanese treatment of opposition in Darfur.
This is not to say that the North’s actions in the Civil War are equal to the oppression or genocide on display in the world today, but to say that the use of force determines right is a curious statement coming from a U.S. newspaper. More likely is the fact that the media in general, including those at the Morning News, oppose the idea of secession. And the Tea Party movement that brought it into the open, for that matter.
No statement in the Constitution of the United States proclaims secession to be illegal. In absence of direct references in the document, the intentions of the Framers may be derived from their public and private discussions on the matter.
When America looked to add the Louisiana Territory to the nation in 1803, many believed it would divide the nation, as a representative republic could only exist, in their view, in a small country. President Thomas Jefferson, writing to Dr. Joseph Priestley on Jan. 29, 1804, appeared to be unconcerned about secession.
“Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part,” Jefferson wrote. “Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern … yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.” Apparently, Jefferson had not consulted with the Morning News before writing to Dr. Priestley.
Jefferson and John Adams, amidst rumblings of secession in New England during the War of 1812, both deplored the idea of states leaving the Union, but never made any statement about that idea being illegal.
Indeed, James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” who was so influential in its development, never declared the Constitution irrevocable. In his notes On Secession, written in 1834, Madison wrote that an individual state could not nullify a law of the United States while still adhering to the Constitution, but he does not say that a state was prohibited from opting out of the contract altogether.
In fact, in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Madison, with Jefferson, wrote that every state has a right to “nullify of its own authority all assumptions of power by others.”
Many of those attending the Tea Parties on April 15 held signs displaying the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Jefferson Davis also used the Tenth Amendment as a justification of secession in 1860. The editors of The Dallas Morning News may be interested to read that there is no provision in the Constitution for the federal government to use force against a state that secedes from the Union, although force was apparently used to make secession “illegal.”
How does this relate to the current climate?
While many on cable news were busy using derogatory sexual references to demagogue and minimize the effect of the national Tax Day rallies, they ignored the true intent and significance of this popular uprising in Texas and elsewhere in America. Conservatives in the United States, much like the agrarian South, are beginning to feel alienated by their Union.
Janeane Garofalo would undoubtedly make a racial comparison between the two historic groups, as she claimed the Tea Party movement was simply a white uprising against an African-American president. She apparently ignored the numerous anti-Bush, anti-Congress, and pro-Constitution signs that were predominantly displayed at each of the 200-plus rallies.
Fiscal conservatives have deplored the use of current and future taxpayer money to be used for the bailouts and the thousands of earmarked projects that were included in the legislation, including money for ultra-liberal groups such as ACORN. Even though millions of Americans called and e-mailed their so-called representatives to influence their votes, the measures have passed easily, with both Democrats and Republicans voting in favor of the bills.
If Congress and the Obama administration manage to pass an amnesty bill, legalizing millions of “undocumented workers” and likely gaining millions of votes for the Democrat party, the conservative movement in the United States could see itself permanently isolated. Obama’s Department of Homeland Security has already released a report labeling many conservatives as “right-wing extremists” and a danger to national security, equating them to militia and white supremacy movements.
In the years leading up to the Civil War, the Southern states also saw their voting power diminish further and further until they had no influence over laws, such as tariffs, which directly affected their region in a very negative way. Southerners were also labeled as extremists by the abolition movement, which characterized the entire region of the South as being pro-slavery, even though most Southerners did not own slaves.
This national influence, not slavery, was the driving impetus for the South to secede. As Confederate Maj. Gen. John B. Gordon wrote in his memoirs, even after the Civil War had begun, “the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not eradicate slavery, as students are almost invariably taught. The Proclamation outlawed slavery in the South (in which Lincoln had no power in 1862-1863), but only if the South persisted in fighting past Jan. 1, 1863. If the South had surrendered before that date, the practice of slavery would have continued in the post-war years. Therefore, if slavery was their driving motivation, why did they continue fighting after Jan. 1, 1863? According to historian Roger McGrath, more than 75 percent of the population of the South did not even own slaves. Why would the vast majority of Southerners insist in fighting for a practice in which they did not participate?
In the same way many misunderstand the crisis which caused the Civil War, liberals also misunderstand the way the current economic crisis is causing the backlash of the Tea Party movement. If conservative-leaning states, such as Texas, see their influence drastically reduced or eliminated because of the actions of the federal government, they may once again question if the Constitution is a contract that can be canceled.
29 Comments
April 22, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Very inciteful article with much food for thought. IMO the People of Texas will decide what is best for their continuation as a Free Republic. As the massive federal government encroaches on our freedoms, more and more Texans are waking up. WE WILL BE FREE!! This must be closely monitored for our children and grand-children’s future. Remember the Alamo!
April 22, 2009 at 9:26 pm
I’m in! Let’s do it!
April 22, 2009 at 10:57 pm
You are a moron.
And a traitor.
April 22, 2009 at 11:02 pm
[...] Secession…it may be closer than you think [...]
April 22, 2009 at 11:10 pm
no, you are the moron ed
April 23, 2009 at 12:14 am
I really enjoyed this article. As a student of American history, I believe you are right on the money. If the liberals and Democrats don’t get a clue they might have an armed conflict on their hands. People can so much for so long.
I am currently working in Korea. When I return, I will set up household in Texas. I like their spirit.
April 23, 2009 at 12:15 am
I meant to say: People can take so much for so long.
April 23, 2009 at 12:31 am
If Texas secedes, I am moving to Texas!
July 6, 2009 at 12:51 am
I’ll be right behind you! Go Texas!
April 23, 2009 at 2:17 am
it’s finally nice to see someone who knows the real facts about the war for southern independence. i like this article. it’s fact-based, logically written, and non-emotional. it does not call anyone a moron, as one of the respondents did.
a traitor is someone who tries to violently overthrow his country. a citizen tries to change it legally. a sheep dislikes what’s happening, but accepts it without argument. our government wants sheep.
i am fed up with our federal government, every one of them, even my own congressmen. they definitely have not represented me.
fred j napurano – fort worth
April 23, 2009 at 5:12 am
im with kandice
April 23, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Wow, I was ready for some kind of democrats suck lets succeed type argument and instead got a logic based argument using historical examples, well done!
As a liberal however I do have some problems with the logic of the argument. I, along with many others, have felt over the previous eight years that the conservative administration was causing our country as much long term harm in the areas of science, moral leadership and the health of our planet as you feel the fiscally liberal leadership is causing the country now. However, I would never have advocated for succession.
The only logical and responsible thing to do is to rally like minded people and get them in power during the next election, as the liberals did.
Let’s assume for a moment that succession does indeed happen. All that will have been accomplished is setting the precedent then whenever two groups of Americans have a serious disagreement it is ok to say, “Screw you, will just go make our own country because you suck!.” Not exactly a mature way of solving our problems. Then 100 years hence when half of Texas favors cloning (or whatever the debate will be in 100 years) and the other half doesn’t they will have historical precedent to succeed once again, and so on and so forth until eventually Parker County, Texas (where I live) will be its own country.
The point is that succession in no way solves our problems. If, as you believe, a vast majority of people hate what our federal government is doing, band together and in 2012 get people in there who will do what you want. Walking away from an argument only means the other side won.
April 23, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Zach raises a couple of valid points that I would like to address. First, most, if not all, of those who attended the Feb. 27 and April 15 Tea Parties had little good to say about the economic policies of George W. Bush. The drive for secession is not so much a reaction to the Obama administration as it is a reaction, albeit delayed, to the bloated federal government that seems intent to drive us into socialism and potential bankruptcy.
This is not a Republican/Democrat issue. It is a conservative/liberal issue, and there are many Republicans who, whether they do it intentionally or not, vote for spending and increased government. As Zach points out, one solution would be to “vote the bums out,” to coin a phrase.
Secondly, Zach writes that secession is sort of like taking your ball and going home when things don’t go your way. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion. This is not Susan Sarandon saying, “If McCain wins, I’m moving to Canada,” when everyone knows she has no intention of it.
This is a movement based on the idea that the federal government has begun a pattern of Constitutional violations dating back to the 1920s. As I indicated in the article, those who believe that the Founding Fathers got it right the first time are reacting against the federal government’s apparent attempts to condemn us to financial ruin. How do you think we will pay for universal health care? What do you think will happen when capital gains and corporate taxes are raised? What will be the end result of the Fed’s decision to print money in order to meet the spending demands of Congress?
Texans are not saying, “Screw you, will just go make our own country because you suck! [sic]” They are simply stating, “The Titanic is racing for the iceberg, the captain and crew are smiling and laughing, and we’re prudently looking around for the lifeboats.”
April 23, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Good points once again publius.
Even as a liberal I will admit to being worried about committing our country to the fiscal route we are taking although I believe the benefits to outweigh the risks.
1) “How do you think we will pay for universal health care?”
By raising the capital gains and corporate taxes and ending the war in Iraq. (4 billion a month certainly won’t hurt our balance sheets.)
2) “What do you think will happen when capital gains and corporate taxes are raised?
Companies will still have to employee people if they want to be companies, America will not suddenly become unemployed. Admittedly the size and frequency of raises (especially for top earners) will go down which does seem in contradiction to the American way. However, as someone who drives a forklift and makes about $13,000 a year I can’t honestly claim to be particularly concerned with the plight of someone who goes from $200,000 a year to $160,000. Although that is unfortunate for them at least the next time I get pnumonia I can go to a doctor without waiting a couple of weeks because I know I can’t afford the trip and allowing the condition to get worse. Which of course caused me to miss more work than if I had gone when I first got sick. And then of course if I would have ended up in the hospital it would only have further increased taxpayer debt. (As I certainly could not have paid those bills.) Increase that example by millions of poor people annually and perhaps the argument that socialized medicine is indeed a good thing for the country begins to make at least some sense. So in conclusion the tops of the society will be slightly brought down but the masses of society will be brought up even more.
3) “What will be the end result of the Fed’s decision to print money in order to meet the spending demands of Congress?”
Something horrible as it never should have been done. I believe the taxes should have been set up so as to have payment ready for the increases Congress passed.
And back to the succession argument, I’m not sure what alternative there is for people who feel dissatisfied with the very structure of the federal government over the past century except to contemplate succession, but I feel if it even reaches the point of serious conversation it will leave a horrible example for the future generations. There has to be a way to work out our problems without ending our country.
April 23, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Zach, I wanted to thank you for your reasoned response to someone you disagree with. Being very conservative I agree with Michael’s take on this but I have really enjoyed reading your responses. I cannot help but believe that if more people on both sides of the political debate could step back and approach the discussion as you have we could solve so many of our current problems.
Again, Thank you and I look forward to your continued discussion on these matters.
April 25, 2009 at 8:33 pm
The author does not address Texas v., White, which indicates he/she does not understand the issue.
April 25, 2009 at 8:51 pm
There is no misunderstanding. In Texas v. White, the Supreme Court under Salmon Chase used the Articles of Confederation to prove the Union was “perpetual.” He then made the logical leap that, since the Constitution was a “more perfect Union” than that under the Articles, it must be even more perpetual, if such a thing is possible.
If Texas was arguing secession, they would be looking at the contractual nature of the Constitution. Supreme Court decisions, as part of the contract, would not apply to a state that wished to nullify the contract. To repeat an example, when Lincoln issued the Proclamation, it was to apply to the Confederacy. The South, who were not part of the Union in 1863, simply ignored the order.
If Texas, and other states for that matter, truly wished to examine the case for dissolution of the contract, they may consider Texas v. White, but would not necessarily be bound to it. In other words, if they were planning on canceling their acceptance of the Constitution, the rulings of the Supreme Court would be canceled for them as well.
As an aside, the majority ruling in that case was written by Salmon Chase, who served in Lincoln’s cabinet and was among those considered Radical Republicans who wished to punish the South for its audacity. His politically charged opinion would do little, in my opinion, to dissuade the state of Texas from claiming independence under what they would consider an oppressive government.
If it came down to the opinions of Salmon Chase or the opinions of Jefferson, Madison, et al, I would choose the latter.
April 27, 2009 at 4:05 am
I would like to ask a few questions from you. There are a few things I don’t quite understand and a few things i feel skeptical about. I have been reading your work and I think you are very smart so I am honestly interested in your intelligent response. People on the web respond with such hate, doesn’t really help me with whatever ignorance I, admittedly, might have. I can’t fight the feeling that this ends up being about “conservatives” keeping their money. I hear the phrase less government and at times anti government. This is the first conflict because it has been my observation, as limited and unscientific as it may be, that most of those who claim to want less government also want stricter anti marijuana laws (i am not a smoker), stricter abortion laws (I would prefer no abortions, but I want the government out of the decision), stricter stem cell laws, stricter same sex marriage laws and other government involvements. When I hear cries of less government, it seams most commonly in response to tax increase and gun control. I love guns and shoot guns and value the right. I guess it is this observation that keeps me skeptical. There is this other related point, about signs I witnessed that said, flat rate taxes or no taxes. I am not an economist but this seems misleading. Forgive the ignorance, and perhaps you can shed some light, it seems that if I made (lets keep the numbers small) $1000 year and paid $25 for social security and $75 for taxes. that is 10% of my income. When you make $10,000 and owe 20% at first glace it seams you are paying more but at closer look we see the following. Your social security stops getting taken out at $300. Also you have tax write offs which the average American making the $1000 does not have. So, in the end you have the potential to pay less per dollar than the person making less. The rich have been getting tax breaks for things like business flights, stock market losses, investment losses, rental property repairs and more all of which are government involvement. So, flat rate taxes would not actually be flat rate. It would only just seem that way. Lastly, there is this thing about the tea party. The honest truth is we absolutely do have representation. We elect people who every two to four years, if it needs to be more frequently that is fine however as it stands we are represented. this idea that the people called in and the phone calls were not reflected in the decision is just simply not how the process works. The crazy thing is we can all vote to change that process. While we do have taxation we also have representation, while letters and phone calls are helpful in raising a flag to the people who represent us in the D.C. is probably helpful in letting them know what is wanted, that is just not how it works. I have checked the box to have me notified when there is a follow up comment. I hope there more education dialog than useless insults, I am open to new ideas that may adjust my point of view. Bless you for so articulately blogging and adding intelligence to this topic.
April 27, 2009 at 5:22 am
Adisa –
I appreciate your questions and your candor. As I have told others through this blog, if we as Americans could discuss issues, and even disagree, in a civil discourse without being beholden to party differentiations, there would be no interest in an article about secession, and the United States would be stronger for it.
You ask several wonderful questions, and I thank you for the opportunity to answer them in the order in which they were asked.
First, is the movement for less government based upon the desire of the rich, or as you put it, “conservatives” to keep more of their money? I cannot speak for the motives of all, but what I and many other conservatives desire is to return to the government described in the Constitution.
I am not wealthy, by anyone’s standard. I am a schoolteacher in a private school making less than I would in a public institution. My motivation for returning the government to its roots is that the Founders, in their God-given wisdom, understood that man succeeds when he is free to pursue his own happiness.
That does not mean anarchy–there must be rules. That does not mean all men have the right to happiness–our Framers didn’t believe God granted us the right to a happy ending. What we do have is the right to carve out the best life we can in this world, unhindered by government. This was the accepted axiom in America until the Depression, when crisis and fear caused us to trade our freedom for the security promised by the federal government.
I don’t believe the federal government should be involved in the areas you cite: drug use, abortion, etc. I believe the individual states should have the right to decide on those issues themselves. Of the problems you cited, abortion would be the most difficult, because a federal standard of life may have to be decided upon, but most people agree on that standard already. What happens to an accused killer who murders a pregnant woman? He is almost invariably cited for two murders: the woman and her unborn child. And yet abortion is protected. It makes little sense and would have to be hashed out at some point. But I will save any further abortion discussion for a future blog.
Second question, would flat taxes benefit the rich? The current tax code does give many deductions for those who know how to deal with the system, and they still pay the lion’s share of our national revenue. One glaring example of the taxpayer disparity is New York City. In a city of eight million, over half the tax revenue comes from 40,000 people. I can understand how you would have no sympathy for the rich, but how can a system survive under such a discrepancy?
What if those 40,000, or even a percentage of them, decide to leave New York for greener pastures? What happens to the economy? The rich, who are often demonized in America, are, like it or not, the ones who drive the economy and create jobs.
There have been several versions of tax reform pushed in the last several years. The flat tax, which some propose, would place a fixed rate on all taxpayers. In such a system, deductions and loopholes would be closed. Let’s say the tax rate was set at 17%. If you made $100, you pay $17. If you made $1,000,000, you pay $170,000. The other federal taxes would also need to be revoked, such as taxes on gasoline and phone service.
Another popular tax plan is the Fair Tax, pushed by Congressman John Linder of Georgia and others. It would take all existing taxes away from the individual and corporate taxpayers and replace them with a single 23% national sales tax. Food would not be subject to the tax, and therefore you could control how much tax you paid by controlling your personal spending. The rich, who buy most of the expensive consumer goods, would pay more in taxes than those who are not wealthy. Visitors to the country would also contribute to our national economy by paying the sales tax while they are here. If you want to learn more about the Fair Tax, I would encourage you to read the book by Linder and Neal Boortz that is available in bookstores and on sites such as Amazon.com.
Even if we were successful in changing the tax code to take the power of our finances away from the government, however, it would be for naught if we could not, as a nation, control our spending. This brings me to your last question.
Why would anyone say we have no representation in Washington when we get to vote for representatives every two years? You are correct to say that we do, in fact, have representation. I believe, however, that the representation that we currently have is more concerned with staying in office than doing the will of the people they represent. Part of this is the fault of the representative, part of this is the fault of those who continually send him back.
The view of the typical Washington politician in our day and age is that being a congressman is a full-time job. They receive pensions for life upon being elected to a single term, and they begin planning their re-election bids almost immediately. In that way, American politicians have not changed much since the mid-1800s or so, but it seems as though their arrogance has become more acute. Term limits would be a way of solving the problem, but Congress would never of its own will pass a term limit bill.
The people continually are swayed by their representatives to return them to office year after year. Incumbents, once in office, usually have more money to spend on a campaign, making them tough to remove. Also, there seems to be a nationwide vacuum of good men willing to work in Washington, regardless of their chances of success in an election. I believe this may change in the next few years, but time will tell. I would hope that the voting public would remember that their congressmen basically thumbed their noses at their constituencies when they voted for the bailout and stimulus bills, but I also know from long experience that the American people are easily swayed.
Years of indoctrination in the schools has not helped matters, but I also believe that the sheer size of our government in 2009 makes it seem unlikely to a great deal of eligible voters that their opinion makes much difference in the grand scheme of things. They therefore stay out of the process.
Whatever the reason for it, Washington has become increasingly arrogant when it comes to their willingness to work against the people. Again, I hope this trend will change, and there are some glimmers that it may, but history teaches that government never grows smaller, and that power acquired is rarely released.
Thus, none of your concerns about taxes or none of my answers to you will matter much if our government does not control its expenses. Washington has grown so bloated with power and so immersed in programs designed to keep our “representatives” in power that we appear destined to implode. Those who benefit from government programs would never vote against those who promise to keep those programs running. Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” I’ll be writing a blog in the future about the economy, so I will not make a full discussion here, but suffice it to say that if the American people do NOT exercise their right to vote and deal with the problem, there will be a price to pay long-term.
I have rambled long enough. I hope this has been at least somewhat enlightening for you and has helped to begin answering your questions. I would encourage you to read the Constitution to see for yourself what it says about the role of government in relationship to the people. Thank you, again, for your interest; feel free to spread the word.
April 27, 2009 at 6:27 am
Wow, what a great response. Just a small issue of clarity. I do not dislike the wealthy, I intent to be very wealthy. Where I am from there is a term that says “don’t knock another mans hustle” when I see people with “Oprah” money or Bill Gates for countless other nameless shareholders and executives I would rather applaud them and, god willing, carve out some piece of inspiration, that I might move another step toward that goal. I love commerce. I think the suggests that I am a capitalist. At the same time, Some of the deceptive business practices that I have read about like when the head of GM admitted to biasing the product line in the interest of the fast buck instead of respecting a global call for a sympathetic product line is largely why they have failed. I guess believe in affirming the education of those with less than me and I feel that as they used that education to earn more it would provide for richer commerce, or if those who could not afford health care had a hand in doing so it would cost us less in other ways. I guess I want to help my fell American do better as a means of doing better myself. Better military training as well as actual armored vehicles, health care for those who need it, a more diverse selection of energy sources, other than oil and corn, (i do like nuclear), better school. I think government spearheading these things would be O.K. if companies like gm and those in the mortgage industry would ignore them, almost as a national security issue. I think a smarter populous means more money for everyone. as poor people loose money very wealthy loose money as well. I guess that implies I am a socialist. Can I be both? As for your first response – It seems we a agree that the government should stay out of stem cells, drug use, abortion, guns, and gay rights. Cool. I still think that most of the people who call themselves conservatives would not agree(with the exception of guns). If they do not then the conflict of anti government still remains. as for your explanation of taxes, I see things a bit different now with respect to fair tax – that seems cool. Lastly, the part about dishonest politicians. I think if we can focus on honest debate such as this and less to insults like the person at the top of this forum who called you a traitor and a moron when you are clearly not the other person who actually responded as if that were helping we could really start to agree on terms as a people an put this internet to good use. I don’t thing Texas should leave the union just like I didn’t think California should leave when we went to war. I think it a bit of the fair weather American. I think we should work it out. I believe in the system even if I don’t always agree with the results.
April 27, 2009 at 10:53 am
I don’t believe you’re a socialist at all. You say you believe government should be taking the initiative on many of those issues you cited, such as energy and education. The federal government has never been effective in reforming education in America, regardless of how many times they tamper with the system. I’ll be writing a blog about education in the very near future where I’ll explain why this is. If you look at the history of our government in the 20th century, you’ll see that they are not effective when they step outside the bounds of the Constitution. Take poverty. Herbert Hoover claimed he would see the end of poverty. He was president in 1928. In 1929, for various reasons, the country entered the Depression. Lyndon Johnson declared “war on poverty” in the 1960s with his Great Society programs. We still have homeless, and politicians continue to wage war against poverty. What is our exit strategy on a war that has lasted for 40 years? The answer to helping the poor is not the federal government.
You mentioned the graft and greed of large companies like General Motors. I agree. Several CEOs and high-level employees of some of these companies have been guilty of the greed that people now associate with ALL big business. Their actions, if illegal, should be punished. Their poor business decisions should be allowed to have their eventual effects: bankruptcy or failure. The very government that seeks to solve the nation’s problems by taking over these companies simply enables them to repeat the mistakes. There have been no real consequences for their actions. And to paint business as being full of corrupt individuals, as some in the media have attempted to do, is fairly comical. By allowing government takeovers of businesses, we’re replacing one breed of crook with another. If you don’t like the way GM does business, buy from other companies. Unfortunately, if we don’t like the way Washington does business, it’s harder to find an alternative.
In sum, I don’t know if any state will ever really attempt to secede in the future. My feelings about whether I would want it to happen or not are mixed. What I was doing by writing the article was demonstrating that we have seen these types of conditions before, and they led to a bloody Civil War. Our grasp of history, and our desire to stay off this same course, could help us avoid it this time around.
April 27, 2009 at 8:05 pm
That is some of the best dialog I have had on the internet in a long while. You bring up some interesting points. I have had the mind to let GM fail, it is difficult to maintain that position when I think of the suffering of the people, however, the thought had crossed my mind. I guess with little argument left am beginning to realize that my long standing and seemingly natural resistance to the conservative ideas must have more to do with the conflict of claiming to simply want less government while at the same time pushing agenda’s on gay rights, abortion, drugs, and so on. Its like, if they want to stay out of it then they should really stay out of it. The question that remains is, how do I support education, and affordable health care for all. How do I help to create more jobs for people? How do I make sure our soldiers have bullet proof armor on their trucks? These things are important to me. I do believe that if we can lift up our fellow Americans who are down and out that we can grow even more prosperous and healthy as a nation. perhaps putting corrupt government in control is not the answer. Is it antithetical to the natural order of things for me to want help for some of the poor people of Detroit? Should I be content and watch as this sort of Darwin like, social – economic ecosystem kills of the week and poorly invested and make room for those with a more diverse portfolio?
April 27, 2009 at 9:28 pm
As much as I would like to continue the dialog ad infinitum, I need to keep some topics unanswered or no one will need to read my upcoming blogs. As to how you can support education, get involved on a local level. Become a tutor, research the positions of your local school boards and take them to task, or find another way to involve yourself locally.
I won’t address the health care topic extensively now, as I’m not sure what your definition of “affordable health care” is. My wife and I have had periods where we did not have health insurance, and we still managed to get the health care we needed. Those who need health care can get it through current programs, such as Medicare and through their local health departments. Putting the government in control of your health care will make it free (if you don’t count the taxes levied to pay for it), but it will inevitably become what exists in other nations today: a bloated bureaucracy that eventually begins to make decision about your health that should only be made by you and your doctor. I agree there are problems with the system, and I think there are reachable solutions, such as tort reform, but governmental control of the industry will do nothing to improve the situation.
As to growing the economy, lowering taxes historically always works. John F. Kennedy knew it, Ronald Reagan knew it, and some foreign countries are learning the principle. Ireland’s economy began a boom in recent years when they dropped corporate taxes. China levies no (as in ZERO) capital gains taxes. They want people to make money. When people make money, they grow their businesses and they spend. That spending creates jobs. This isn’t a theory. This is fact. It works every time it is tried. Government spending does not create jobs, and it has been tried on numerous occasions. John Maynard Keynes, who advocated the idea of short-term deficit spending to grow an economy, also qualified his statements with the precaution that the method could only be used in the short-term. The deficit had to be repaid, according to Keynes, when the nation’s economy turned for the better. It’s that part of Keynesian economics that today’s politicians ignore.
Your concern for the people of Detroit and others like them is fine. But you have to understand that they also have to be responsible for their actions. They also have to put in the effort to change. They will be better served in that effort if government takes less of a role in their lives, not more. Their chances of employment, their chances of a good life, their pursuits of happiness will be greatly enhanced by the absence, not interference, of government.
I have, again, typed more than I intended, but it is because I believe you are someone who deserves answers. You deserve to know the truth, and I am confident you will make good, conscientious decisions when you take that truth to heart.
May 2, 2009 at 9:40 pm
“On Friday, The Dallas Morning News reported that a poll of 500″
In an online ABC poll of 3000 people, 81% voted that Texas should secede.
June 8, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Publius wrote,
“the majority ruling in that case was written by Salmon Chase, who served in Lincoln’s cabinet and was among those considered Radical Republicans who wished to punish the South for its audacity.”
After years of illegal imprisonment without writ of habeus corpus, Jefferson Davis had the charges of treason against him dismissed by the federal government. The government knew it didn’t have a case and Salmon Chase who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court told President Andrew Johnson, “Do not let Davis take the stand. He will vindicate the right of Southern secession.”
The only reason the Confederate states are in the union today is because they were forced into it at bayonet point. But “might makes right”, according to the Dallas Morning News.
June 9, 2009 at 2:31 am
For those that don’t believe that secession should be legal, do you believe that a divorce is legal?
June 17, 2009 at 12:43 am
The outcome of the War of Northern Aggression should not be used to justify the statement that session was illegal – read the constitution. Those who are in favor of such action are not being guided by racism, anyone who performs as this president has (black, white, yellow, or brown) deserves to be impeached. WHERE IS HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
July 6, 2009 at 1:27 am
[...] This post was Twitted by Danstlmo [...]
July 6, 2009 at 1:58 pm
[...] This post was Twitted by StaunchConserv [...]