Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, was on Glenn Beck this week to discuss why secession is necessary. Miller seems to be very intelligent, which should help to give his cause some legitimacy in the public eye.
I especially liked Miller's reference to Judge Napolitano on why secession is a natural right. To add to that point, the War Between the States, did not decide the debate over secession. It only proved that the North had a better military than the South. They were the biggest bully on the block and Lincoln proved he was a tyrant willing to invade and slaughter his own country. Nothing regarding the moral or legal legitimacy of secession can be determined from war.
If somehow Texas actually does secede, I will be moving there immediately.
4 comments:
These nutbags are just like all other neo-confederates trying to win the War of the Rebellion.
Does advocating for secession automatically make someone a "nutbag" or a "neo-confederate"? Were the colonists a bunch of nutbags when they advocated for secession from Britain? Were the Soviet Union States a bunch of nutbags for advocating secession from Russia?
Are you sure they're nutbags or do you think that maybe all they want is a government that protects, rather than threatens and destroys, their life, liberty, and property?
Ok, how about...traitors.
First off the southern "justification" for secession was that they, the states, made the Union, therfore they could "unmake" the Union or just leave it when they wanted to. The Colonies did not make the British Empire, the Empire est. the colonies.
For the Soviet states, they were right in their secession or breaking away from the Communist state...many of those eastern block countries were countries unto themselves prior to WWII. Not so with the 13 colonies.
I have asked many people of your mindset this question. Just what is the government really threatening, destroying in terms of Life, Liberty and Property or Happiness?
I do not quite understand your point about the Colonists. Also, the justification for secession that you mention is not only a Southern justification. Take a look at the Middlebury Institute or some of the writings by Thomas Naylor or the Hartford Convention of the early 19th century. These are secessionists or secessionists movements originating from the Northern States and they make or made the same argument that you mention - the States voluntarily entered the Union so they can voluntarily leave.
You state, "many of those eastern block countries were countries unto themselves prior to WWII. Not so with the 13 colonies."
But the Colonies were "Free and Independent States" starting immediately after they seceded. It says so right on the Declaration of Independence. Also, after the revolution was over, the King entered into peace treaties not with the United States but with each State independently. The States were most certainly independent nations prior to the Constitution, which each State voluntarily agreed to in order to enter the Union. This was a treaty not a suicide pact.
As you've requested, I will make a brief list of actions the Federal Government has taken in the past or in the present that is antithetical to protecting life, liberty, and property. Remember my point is not necessarily that the gov't has destroyed life, liberty, and property (although they certainly have) but that they fail to protect life, liberty, and property:
1) conscription (life)
2) concentration camps to the Japanese and slavery (life, liberty, and property)
3) income tax (property)
4) federal reserve - they have been given a monopoly on printing money aka counterfeiting. the federal gov't has banned our freedom to write contracts in other currencies or commodities such as gold (property and liberty)
5) FDR just plain stole people's gold and the supreme court upheld this action (property)
6) property tax (property)
7) warrant-less wire tapping (liberty)
8) all kinds of bans on what we can buy and sell with one another- plants that I'm not allowed to touch (drug war), medicines, individuals I am allowed to pay for services (e.g. doctors must have a gov't license so I can't pay a cheaper technician for med services), can't make my own alcohol, can't buy a gun without gov't forms, can't sell food without license, can't open a business on my private property without gov't business license and zoning permission, agriculture (dept of agriculture will only let you grow crops on your land if they say so; property and liberty), etc...
9) abortion (life)
10) stem cells research (life) - again my point is not that gov't performs abortion or stem cell research, but that it does not protect life.
11) transfer of wealth to politically well-connected. I'm referring to either banks or the military industrial complex or even welfare and social security. (property)
12) eminent domain (property)
If I took more time I'm sure I could come up with a longer list. The truth is that the Colonists had it much better off in terms of liberty than we do today. The long train of abuses that Jefferson mentioned is nothing compared to our Federal Government, which is literally the largest government in the history of the world.
Post a Comment