Sovereignty, Secession, and Stupidity
Texas Gov. Rick Perry became an instant hero of the anti-tax crowd on Tax Day, proclaiming the evils of the ever growing federal government. An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall — one of three tea parties he was attending across the state — that officials in Washington have abandoned the country’s founding principles of limited government. He said the federal government is strangling Americans with taxation, spending and debt.
But then Perry went one step to far. Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.
Now, I understand the anger that is arising from the Democrats ever expanding wish list. Trust me, I feel the anger as well. But the word ’secession’ is a dangerous one. It has so many evil connotations. First, of course, is its relationship to slavery and the Civil War. You cannot separate the two. Second is that if you want to secede, are you bordering on treason? I am not calling Perry a traitor by any means; I am simply stating how his statements look to the opposition.
Now, where the liberal media gets confuses (mainly, because they are not all that smart) is the difference between secession and sovereigntly.
State sovereignty is granted in the Bill of Rights, the 10th Amendment to precise. It reads:
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.
With the ever expanding number of ‘rights’ the federal government is co-opting from the people and the states, this may appear to be an ever dwindling right of the people. Regardless, it still exists. For states to impose this on the Federal government is simply within their rights.
Several Governors, both Democrat and Republican, have tried to impose this in their unwillingness to accept all the bailout and TARP money. Of course, President Obama has been reluctant to make any concessions; why should he, when it would only deteriorate his central power?
The citizens of this country, and the states they live in, have a right to push back against Federal over reach of power. That is a slightly separate issue from the albatross of ’secession’. Sovereignty was an important factor in the forming of our government. Just because some on the political left have forgotten that for the case of political expediency does not erode the truth. But we on the right must be careful about our statements, because words mean things. We shouldn’t give people like Janet Napolitano any reason to take our comments and intent out of context. Sometimes we are conveying messages that we have no intention of conveying, to our own detriment.
While I agree with you that the word “secession” does not help our cause as far as taxes are concerned, I must disagree about the natural right. Yes, Americans put secession and slavery together, but incorrectly so. Secession was considered a natural right of the states until the War Between the States. Prior to 1865, there had been several movements of states to secede from the Union, including some northeastern states over the Louisianna Purchase. Indeed, the Articles of Confederation, the precursor to our modern Constitution, was said to create a perpetual Union. However, several states decided to secede from that confederation. When the Constitution was ratified, two states were not included. The words “perpetual Union” were conspicuously absent from the new charter. During the debates the framers even conceded that it was a pact among states and not perpetual. The federal government could not force unwilling states to remain.
Consolidation and centralization of the government in the throes and aftermath of the War Between the States rendered the point of secession all but moot. Failure to try President Jefferson Davis for treason was based upon knowledge that he would win in a court of law at that time. The administration knew that a victory for him would prove him correct when he said, “A question settled by violence, or in disregard of law, must remain unsettled forever.” It would also prove the central government of the Union wrong for waging a war in which more than 600,000 people perished. Not to mention, it would undo the centralization of the government and put power back where it belonged, in the hands of the people and the several states.
With “sovereignty” comes the right to withdraw from a compact when one side refuses to abide by its obligations. We are not sovereign if we have no rights beyond acting like whimpering dogs with our tails between our legs when we beg the federal government, “Please don’t place more burdens on me. Yes, I’ll carry them, but I won’t be happy about it.” Without the recognition of our sovereignty and our ability to withdraw from a despotic government, we are little more than fleas who would be knights, tilting at windmills in the land of giants.
[...] just read an article at neoavatara
I disagree. We may have begun as individual ’states’, but we are well past that point now. I think secession is just not reasonable or realistic, whether it is connected to slavery or not. On the other hand, states revolting against he federal government is TOTALLY realistic. The federal government government cannot survive without state complicity. But they all are in the same pot, wanting more tax dollars. That is all they are concerned about.
As a point of fact, Texas began it’s history apart from
Mexico as an independent Replublic in 1836, not as a
part of the United States. Texas had its own armed
forces (including a Navy) and signed treaties with
Europen powers like France and Holland. Voluntary
annexation to the United States did not occur until
1845, and was conditional. Texas was a country unto
itself, and is one of the few present-day states that has
the energy resources to succeed as an independent nation.
yeah, but there is a time limit on those conditions. It was never clearly put down in the Texas Constitution, and if they really felt that way they never should have rejoined after the Civil War.
I think state sovereignty is important, but the concept of secession is for history only.