Ron Paul:Secession is right, civil war is not

[Papay]

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-seces...150021276.html

Outgoing Republican U.S. representative Ron Paul has waded into the secession debate, saying that states have the right to leave the Union, and that the Civil War may not have been “right.”
1024px-Ron_Paul_WRLCThe libertarian politician made the comments on his official House website.
The latest secession controversy was started by a series of petitions on a White House website called We the People. They asked the Obama administration to comment on the possible secession of Texas, Louisiana, and other states after the president defeated Mitt Romney earlier this month.
The Texas petition received about 115,000 online signatures as of Tuesday morning, with a number of people not living in Texas signing up.
Paul’s comments were picked up on political websites on Monday night.
“While I wouldn’t hold my breath on Texas actually seceding, I believe these petitions raise a lot of worthwhile questions about the nature of our union,” Paul said.
“Many think the question of secession was settled by our Civil War. On the contrary; the principles of self-governance and voluntary association are at the core of our founding. Clearly Thomas Jefferson believed secession was proper, albeit as a last resort,” he added.
“Keep in mind that the first and third paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence expressly contemplate the dissolution of a political union when the underlying government becomes tyrannical.Do we have a ‘government without limitation of powers’ yet? The Federal government kept the Union together through violence and force in the Civil War, but did might really make right?” Paul added.
Legally, there is little evidence that any secessionist movement would have a chance of winning a legal challenge.


“No state, however frustrated some of its citizens may be with the present state of government in America, is going to be able to leave the Union and go its own way. That is one of the most firmly settled issues on the meaning of the Constitution,” Denniston said.
The issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Texas v. White in 1869, and the only theoretical path to secession would be the passage of a constitutional amendment.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed that opinion in 2006, when he responded to a letter from a screenwriter, who was writing a fictional story about Maine dumping the U.S. to join Canada.
“To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.(Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit,” Scalia said.
Paul didn’t bring up the issue of slavery in the Civil War on his official House website, but he has discussed it in the past.
Recent Constitution Daily Stories


In 2007, Paul told “Meet The Press” said that the North should have bought the slaves living in the South and freed them, rather than pursue a war.
“Every other country in the world got rid of slavery without a Civil War,” Paul told Tim Russert.
In another undated video on YouTube, Paul told an audience that slavery was an important factor in the Civil War, but not the biggest reason the conflict was fought.
“It really wasn’t the issue of why the war was fought in my estimation,” he said.
Paul said that Abraham Lincoln, like Alexander Hamilton, believed that central government should benefit the industrial base in the North, along with a central banking system.
“When they saw this opportunity, they used the issue of slavery to precipitate the war and literally cancel out the whole concept of individual choice,” he said.

Question regarding the states of America:How their borders were drawn?On what criteria? And why all this talk recently for secession?Is it for economical reasons? Or the issue is overblown by the media?

[Black John]

Ron Paul in general is overblown.

[Vanoi]

Fighting the Civil War was wrong? FFS Ron Paul. Just please stop talking and fade into obscurity already.

[HannibalExMachina]

would be nice if the union could secede from some states though.

[hellheaven1987]

I remember no actual laws suggest states can leave union or not, no?

[Vanoi]

I remember no actual laws suggest states can leave union or not, no?

Civil War decided that issue. It's a no.

[Imperial]

Thread #4 about secession since the election.

About 10 more to go if we want to reach a record high.

[Megas Ycarus]

The less power centralized, the better. Also, Obama is implementing way too much socialist measures.

[B. W.]

Texas and Vermont are the only two states that have a seccession agreement written into their statehood petition.

As far as the Civil War goes, the language in the original agreements did not change when the war ended.

Also the Confederate states had, in fact, secceded from the Union. War did not come until the South fired on Fort Sumner (a very stupid thing to do becasue it was an act of war and gave northern economic imperialists an excuse to go to war with the South). After the war the South was, in effect, treated like a conquered country.

Do I think seccesion would be a good idea? No!

As far as slavery being the cause of the war, keep in mind that Delaware (a northern state) was the last state to have legal slavery and it did not end until sometime after the war was over. So, ask yourself this question. If the Civil war was about slavery, why didn't the Union attack Delaware and free the slaves there after the Emacipation Proclamation?

[Vanoi]

As far as slavery being the cause of the war, keep in mind that Delaware (a northern state) was the last state to have legal slavery and it did not end until sometime after the war was over. So, ask yourself this question. If the Civil war was about slavery, why didn't the Union attack Delaware and free the slaves there after the Emacipation Proclamation?

Because they stayed in the Union? And the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states that had seceded?

And the war was about slavery. Haven't you read the Confederate Constitution? They highlight slavery as a reason they are seceding. The entire reason they seceded was because of Lincoln's views on slavery and his plans regarding slavery in territories.

[B. W.]

Because they stayed in the Union? And the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states that had seceded?

And the war was about slavery. Haven't you read the Confederate Constitution? They highlight slavery as a reason they are seceding. The entire reason they seceded was because of Lincoln's views on slavery and his plans regarding slavery in territories.

Because they stayed in the Union? And the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states that had seceded?

And the war was about slavery. Haven't you read the Confederate Constitution? They highlight slavery as a reason they are seceding. The entire reason they seceded was because of Lincoln's views on slavery and his plans regarding slavery in territories.

The evidence that the Emanciaption Procalmation only applied to Southern states is quite forward. Delaware did not end slavery until some time after the conclusion of the war and then it was done by an act of that states' legislature, not the Emancipation P.

it's been a while since I read the Confederate Constitution, but I seem to recall it banned the importation of more slaves. If the war was truely about slavery do you really think this is something they would have done? The fact is the framers of the Confederate Constitution made roughly the same bargain with some states as the Founders did with the US Constitution in order to get their inclusion. At the time of the war there was already quite a bit of sentiment in the south for ending slavery. Even Robert E. lee spoke about it. South Carolina's principal reason for secession was to creat an economic free trade zone to compete with Northerneastern ports. Same for Texas and the port of Galveston. This would have been devastating to Northern business interests.

And, by the way, the largest slave holder in South Carolina at the start of the war was a black man named William Emerson (his grandsons fought on the side of the South).

What raised southern ire with the election of Lincoln was his well known activities as a lawyer defending northern business interests at the expense of southerners along the Misssippi River. His position on teritorial expansion of slavery only reinforced their views. His election, in thier view, meant that the South would suffer economically to the benefit of Northeastern business interests.

After the war, the South was an economic wasteland and remained so for decades until around the 1920's when northern businessmen started making heavy investments there to avoid union labour problems. Uh, did I mention I happen to have a degree in history?

[Vanoi]

The evidence that the Emanciaption Procalmation only applied to Southern states is quite forward. Delaware did not end slavery until some time after the conclusion of the war and then it was done by an act of that states' legislature, not the Emancipation P.

And the Emancipation Proclamation again only applied to the rebelling states. It was the 13th Amendment that ended slavery.

it's been a while since I read the Confederate Constitution, but I seem to recall it banned the importation of more slaves. If the war was truely about slavery do you really think this is something they would have done?

Yes? You realize the South was just following the same policy set forth decades ago by the Federal government?

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Read the rest. That entire passage is referring to slavery.

The fact is the framers of the Confederate Constitution made roughly the same bargain with some states as the Founders did with the US Constitution in order to get their inclusion. At the time of the war there was already quite a bit of sentiment in the south for ending slavery. Even Robert E. lee spoke about it. South Carolina's principal reason for secession was to creat an economic free trade zone to compete with Northerneastern ports. Same for Texas and the port of Galveston. This would have been devastating to Northern business interests.

South Carolina also wanted to leave because of the North's own hostility towards slavery. If Lincoln wouldn't have been elected, South Carolina would have never seceded.

What raised southern ire with the election of Lincoln was his well known activities as a lawyer defending northern business interests at the expense of southerners along the Misssippi River. His position on teritorial expansion of slavery only reinforced their views. His election, in thier view, meant that the South would suffer economically to the benefit of Northeastern business interests.

No. The policy Lincoln advocated would have destroyed the balance of representation in the Senate. That is a big reason why the South seceded.

After the war, the South was an economic wasteland and remained so for decades until around the 1920's when northern businessmen started making heavy investments there to avoid union labour problems. Uh, did I mention I happen to have a degree in history?

Thats nice, but a big reason they were an economic wasteland is because they built their entire economy around slavery in agriculture. Without all of those slaves, the economy shattered. If they had moved away form slavery and started to industrialize their economies wouldn't have been hit so bad.

[Matthias]

Texas and Vermont are the only two states that have a seccession agreement written into their statehood petition.

No, neither do.

As far as the Civil War goes, the language in the original agreements did not change when the war ended

No.

Also the Confederate states had, in fact, secceded from the Union. War did not come until the South fired on Fort Sumner (a very stupid thing to do becasue it was an act of war and gave northern economic imperialists an excuse to go to war with the South). After the war the South was, in effect, treated like a conquered country.

You can call it whatever you want. The federal government referred to it as an internal rebellion.

Do I think seccesion would be a good idea? No!

Neither do the vast majority of Americans, even Texans. There is something quite stupid about saying states have the "right" to secede. If states voted themselves out of a democracy every time an election didn't go their way, it would be damaging to both democracy and to any sort of stability. And what would stop the new states making up the new country from seceding if they wished? It's just an argument for the powers that be to get their way when they don't like the results of democracy. Which is what the Civil War was actually.

In reality, the people always have "the right" (if you want to call it that) to rebel against the government if they feel it is tyrrannical. Whether they are called patriots or rebels is only a matter of who wins though. To say "the states" do is just silly though, since the states are simply government bodies themselves. A county could secede from a state, a town from a county, etc., it's not a "state right", it's just the right of any people to try, if they want. Whether it's justified or not is completely subjective.

As far as slavery being the cause of the war, keep in mind that Delaware (a northern state) was the last state to have legal slavery and it did not end until sometime after the war was over. So, ask yourself this question. If the Civil war was about slavery, why didn't the Union attack Delaware and free the slaves there after the Emacipation Proclamation?

The Civil War was about slavery. Delaware didn't secede, even though it had slaves, and neither did a lot of other northern states (Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri) because slavery wasn't a huge part of their economy, so Lincoln being voted in didn't threaten them like it did the southern states, many of whom were practically monoculture wealthy slave aristocracies. And those aristocrats (who conveniently ran all the state governments) were the ones that themselves said in their own declarations of secession that it was due to slavery. More specifically, southern states didn't like the result of the election, so they wanted to take their ball and go home, and it was on the issue of slavery.

Looking back, the Confederacy really is a joke. Fighting and dying to preserve slavery. It was all about economics and maintaining a racial social caste order through slavery. The aristorcrats got the money, the poor whites got keep their slightly better social role. Course, most poor whites were too ignorant to realize even that. For them the fighting was just simply for adventure, social pressure, nationalism, or due to conscription. The reasons soldiers fight, however, is rarely tied to the reasons states go to war.

If slavery had already been abolished, the Civil War would not have happened, because that's what it was about. The southern states couldn't handle democracy, which makes sense, considering it was an old school aristocratic slave society. Democracy doesn't exactly make sense in such places. And the whining and mewling I hear now from conservatives is very similar. It all comes from a sense of entitlement by some that they should always get their way, democracy be damned. The white male entitlement syndrom is still strong in many of these places.

[Liamgamer55]

In the modern context I think an American civil war would be wrong. Back then I think it wasn't particularly since democracy and slavery had been around for a much shorter time. For the most part i agree with his sentiment here and with the things I differ on I absolutely respect his view.

[Denny Crane!]

Every group of people have a right for self determination and no state has a right to hold a group of people in bondage.

That is why Scotland is getting a referendum in this country.

The right of nations to self-determination (from German: Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker), or in short form, the right to self-determination is the cardinal principle in modern international law principles of international law (jus cogens), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms.[1][2] It states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference[3] which can be traced back to the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter.[4] The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.[5] Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination

[Vanoi]

Every group of people have a right for self determination and no state has a right to hold a group of people in bondage.

That is why Scotland is getting a referendum in this country.

The right of nations to self-determination (from German: Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker), or in short form, the right to self-determination is the cardinal principle in modern international law principles of international law (jus cogens), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms.[1][2] It states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference[3] which can be traced back to the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter.[4] The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.[5] Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination

Every country also has the right to territorial integrity. I support self-determination too, but the South had no right to secede.

[Principe Alessandro]

Every country also has the right to territorial integrity. I support self-determination too, but the South had no right to secede.

You cannot support both those two principles. You put self-determination of the people or the territorial integrity of the state above the other.

If you are going to apply those principles in a selective way then you are falling in hypocrisy.

[Vanoi]

You cannot support both those two principles. You put self-determination of the people or the territorial integrity of the state above the other.

No, i actually can. I support territorial integrity usually over self-determination, but it all depends on the reasons why the state wants to leave.

If you are going to apply those principles in a selective way then you are falling in hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy? Both self-determination and territorial integrity have their limits. Like i said, it all depends on the reasoning of why they want to form their own country and such.

[Principe Alessandro]

No, i actually can. I support territorial integrity usually over self-determination, but it all depends on the reasons why the state wants to leave.

Which summarizing only means that you put territorial integrity of the state above the self-determination of the people.

Hypocrisy? Both self-determination and territorial integrity have their limits. Like i said, it all depends on the reasoning of why they want to form their own country and such.

This is only a theoretic exercise that doesn't help at all to solve a problem like a majority of people in a specific region wanting to secede from the main body of the state.

What would you do when such issues arise?

[Dr. Croccer]

Every country also has the right to territorial integrity.
I support self-determination too, but the South had no right to secede.

Why not? Because one of the decision they wanted to make on their own was to continue to enshrine slavery? You do realize that the situation with Great Britain and the rebels in 1776 wasn't that much different?

That's the problem with discussing 'rights', it's utterly arbitrary. The reason the US exists isn't because they were 'right', it was because they won. And the CSA lost.

And maybe I'm old-fashioned, but in my opinion, rights of actual people > right of a polity to control them. Territorial integrity is nonsensical when the country in question refuses to address seperatist sentiment in its territory, so the population is forced to take up arms, and as a result won't get respected by the international community. And, again, it's utterly arbitrary, Northern Cyprus has existed as an 'illegal state' for 40 years now, nothing has happened because the only way to reincorporate them back was via force, and they had plenty of that as well.