I rarely find myself in complete agreement with anything that comes out of the Obama administration. But I have to commend Jon Carson, the White House director of public engagement, for his thoughtful response to the petitions received from those asking that Texas and some other states be allowed to peacefully withdraw from the union. This is the sort of thing that can easily be dismissed as the domain of crackpots. Fortunately, only a tiny minority of Texans supports secession. Nevertheless, the ongoing debates about gun control and the debt ceiling have given a concept that deserved to be consigned to the dustbin of history some traction. And since 125,746 signatures were appended to the Texas petition, the White House was obligated to respond in some way. There are some on the right who are inclined to indulge secessionist fantasies as well as others who think such talk is an amusing way to jibe the current president. But those who read Carson’s low-key takedown of the idea will come away understanding that there is nothing funny about it.
As Carson writes, the courts and history have long since adjudicated the concept of secession by the states. No less a source than Abraham Lincoln can be cited to tell us that “in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual.” Lincoln’s answer to the secessionists of his time, who launched a bloody war that left more than 600,000 Americans dead, was to point out that their effort was the antithesis of democracy. The same can be said of the ideas of the latter-day Lone Star republicans who no longer wish to be part of the same country run by Barack Obama. While some radicals may see this as a rational response to the policies of the administration, this is the sort of absurdity that deserves the most severe condemnation from conservatives who understand that any such talk is an irrational diversion of attention from vital debates on the great issues of the day.
One would think that 150 years after the Civil War it would be impossible for Americans to give even a moment’s serious thought to the merits of secession. The idea that the losers in a presidential election—such as southern advocates of slavery in 1860—could be justified in dissolving the union is contrary to the Constitution as well as to any sense of patriotism. In a democracy, those who are defeated in elections do not seek revenge via destruction of the country, they redouble their efforts to persuade the people of their mistake and look to come back to win the next time. Secession isn’t an expression of autonomy as much as it is a rejection of the system by which we use ballots rather than bullets to choose our leaders. Once you understand that, talk of Texas resuming its brief career as an independent republic stops being an interesting diversion and is seen, as it should be, as a noxious form of public discourse that should be shunned by patriotic Americans.
Extremism is not the exclusive preserve of the right. For the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, the left often acted as if there was nothing, no matter how outrageous, that could be said about the president, including jokes or films about his assassination, without censure. Since January 2009 some on the right have similarly sought to demonize Barack Obama. Far from advancing the fight against his agenda to expand the power of the federal government, extremist utterances and the related conspiracy theories have helped Obama stigmatize all his critics as extremists.
But the history of secession, associated as it is with the cause of slavery and the issues that were fortunately decided by the triumph of the Union, makes it particularly egregious and is therefore especially deserving of denunciation.
One should never throw words like treason around loosely since it has a specific definition that does not apply to offenses that fall short of “making war on the United States.” But the oaths of our public officials speak of preserving and defending the Constitution. Those who advocate the destruction of the union, even in the context of a form of political protest against the government of the day, are treading on very dangerous rhetorical ground. No responsible person, either in Texas or anywhere else, should be under the impression that this falls within the bounds of legitimate political discourse.
I suggest Jonathan that your read some of the basic materials that caused the Founders to consider a Revolution and an Independent country before you so easily condemn those that talk about redressing acts by a government in Washington, DC, so disconnected from so many in the United States. The issue is not about slavery or Southern rights, but about the meaning and purpose of upholding the very Constitution that seems to be held in contempt by so many in the Washington power structure. For starters, I suggest you read Federalist I and II as well as the Declaration of Independence and study the history of the development and meaning of the United States Constitution. The recent assault on the 2nd Amendment is only one example of how an Imperial Presidency and and Imperial government more interested in self preservation and its own power then in a careful articulation and observance of the common protection of law provided in the U.S. Constitution has behaved. Many people have lost faith in the good will and lawful governance of the Federal government and view it as an elitist and separate force that no longer fairly represents the people of the United States with trust of the people necessary to hold on to the allegiance and loyalty of a large part of the population. What we see is political gamesmanship that divides and weakens our nation with excessive debt, restrictive legislation and a process of self enrichment by a ruling class that no longer is interested in the good governance of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a far more dangerous time then you estimate and our political class far removed from the people they govern then they ought to be terribly miscalculates the mood of the nation. The "arming" of America is a classic sign of the danger ahead. It is neither irrational or unpatriotic to stand by the Constitution or oppose by any necessary means an elitist ruling class that uses government for its own ideological ends without regard for their own sworn oaths and duties or the rights of the people of this great country.
It is indeed unpatriotic. It is in fact treasonous. There's a law against advocating the violent overthrow of the government. When it comes to these wingnuts, there is no bottom.
The Constitution is not whatever you and your crackpot internet comrades fantasize that it is. There can be no idea more profoundly or dangerously unpatriotic than secession and disunion — a matter settled for good in 1865. Believe whatever nonsense you want but if the day comes that you act on it, we "elites" will happily put your ass in prison.
If people in a state want to secede, why shouldn't they be allowed to, as a moral matter? There are separatist movements in Canada, Britain, etc., that represent legitimate aspirations (not defending the terrorist IRA, but am thinking of Scottish and Welsh separatists). n nObviously, of course, if two sections of a country go to war and the one section conquers the other one and forces it back into the union, that settles that. But if one section of the country wants to leave, why not let it (I do have little sympathy for the white South in the Civil War, because they had enslaved populations).
Mexico should start firing rockets into Texas while simultaneously petitioning the UN to condemn the illegal seizure and occupation of Mexico. n nThen we will see how the Imperial Presidency will handle a "land for peace" final staus negotiation
n nTexas is America's last hope for some semblance of a return to sanity in governance.
I myself have interpreted the petition signatures the exact way they should be viewed–as the good old Anglo-Saxon middle-finger, which is, after all, a reminder that the common man can take out the mighty. A sign of defiance, and a warning, best heeded.
But perhaps we should think more fully upon the words of Mr. Tobin, who often wishes we would reward law-breaking so as to gain political advantage with a certain demagraphic. He would hold us in submission to the law while granting others who do not likewise voluntarily comply much of what they wish. But, neverthless, I will yield, and agree with Mr. Tobin. No secession, no rebellions. They are categorically wrong. Shall we have our Ambassador at the Court of St. James say that we have finally realized our sins, and wish forgiveness, and will comply with the Queen’s rightful authority? Certainly at the least we should rename several capitals, national and state, lest we continue to honor schismatic traitors, yes?
HillelA – you obviously would have stood with the British Loyalists and the supporters of the Crown in 1775 and 1776. Your very words betray you. The basic instruments of the Republic give us "wing nuts" as you so delicately put it, the inalienable right to demand and fight for our rights whenever we deem necessary. Or as one of the Founders, Thomas Jefferson, put it much more elegantly then I could possibly express – "The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is the natural manure." And so it is today for much of our great nation and its current generation of patriots, "wing nuts" as you call them notwithstanding.
As I was saying, there is no bottom.
George III couldn't have said it better.
George III was a monarch, not a democratically elected leader. He sat atop a state that presumed the right to rule its colonies from afar, allowing its colonial subjects no voice in their own government and suppressing their local institutions with troops when they protested. n nYou really have no idea what you are talking about. Just babbling a few goofball slogans you read on crackpot internet sites.
babble, babble – but think of it this way; there are five million guys out there with guns just like me who have combat experience. So do the math before you try to throw us in jail.
You're not the only one with guns and combat experience, pal. You keep right on thinking that your crackpot ideas and theories are scaring anyone.
You're not scaring anyone either, bud. Personally, I think if Texas or the entire South wants to secede, fine by me. Might be a better country in some ways, I think.
Bravely spoken by someone with the arrogance to call himself an "elite". I'm sure you would be manning the ramparts to throw back the invader /sarc
I'm sure you were just as hard on those reveling in GWB assasination fantasies (cough cough) Tere's a word for that…..Hypocrite
Thomas Jefferson, for better or worse, would reject every last ounce of your reactionary ideology (in favor of his own somewhat reactionary ideology).
Amusing.
All well and good Mr. Tobin, but only if equal denunciation is heaped on the motivations behind secession. Many believe the secessionist reaction is in proportion to the outrages justifying the movement. The overarching goal of this stream of outrages is to "fundamentally transform" our country. It certainly seems to be working, so a reasonable case that the secessionists are the true preservationists can be made. nIn, at your suggestion, reading Mr Carson's "thoughtful" response, I had two thoughts; first, constitutional rationale coming from an administration who so obviously considers it more a hindrance than basis for their agenda takes audacity to new heights. Secondly, to abide by the premise this country is still by, of, and for the people is to believe in unicorns. That concept may have been real initially, and is indeed a quaint aspiration, but has been under incrementally successful attack in the 100 years progressive war. Today's government is of, by, and for itself. The secessionists simply recognize that and are responding accordingly. Seems to me telling them to shut up without a full airing of their grievances strengthens their case.
Excuse me, but I believe Texas negotiated the right to succeed when they joined the Union. I believe that Texas is a totally unique case. Would someone who knows US history please jump in here? If I am right, Jonathan has committed journalistic malpractice by not mentioning this or not knowing it. n nBeyond that, while I fully understand why any sovereign nation wants to keep its territory, there is nothing wrong, immoral or unpatriotic about succession. Was it wrong, immoral or unpatriotic for the 13 Colonies to declare independence and rebel against Great Britan? There is nothing in the US Consititution that says that you are locked in forever. Perhaps that is the right view, but it is not wrong to question it. Podhoretz is being hysterical. n nLarger context: I think that the Jewish Neocon momvement (of which I am a part), is drifting toward the emerging center of leftist gravity, but still hanging on for dear life on Israel and foreign policy generally.
I have to correct myself. Apparently there is not special right in Texas' Articles of Annexation to secede. (Though, interestly, there is a way for it to split into 5 states, which would presumably have a big impact on the Senate). n nSo, I retract my first paragraph entirely and apologize to Jonathan. n nI stand by paragrapsh 2 and 3, however.
No it did not. You "believe" wrongly. Texas did not "negotiate the right to secede when they joined the union." Neither the act voted by Texans approving annexation by the US nor the annexation resolution passed by Congress contained a word about reserving any right to secede. And of course, any implicit right of states to secede was settled by the Civil War. This "theory" of a unique Texas right to withdraw rests entirely on the supposition by some crackpots that since Texas was briefly a sovereign state, it ought to have some special standing. It doesn't. The "theory" doesn't even make sense in that Texas was NOT uniquely a sovereign state before joining the union. So were all of the original 13 states.
jeburke242–I agree with you about Texas. I now see it is a crackpoint theory–I had thought there was something in their Articles, but no, there isn't. I corrected myself. n nHowever, I don't believe that the issue was "settled" by the Civil War or the Supreme Court case that dealt with Texas that discussed the Union as "indissoluble." There is a very very good reason to view the Union that way, and it may be right, but then again, the United States is a very different kind of county as any other and I don't think the brute force of the Civil War "proved" anything. I guess I would say it was a matter of contractual intent: What was the intent of the parties in joining the Union? Was it like a Catholic marriage where there is no divorce–the two become one? A perpetual union, in Lincoln's phrase? Or was it like a civil (or Jewish) marriage, where it is possible to get out of it. I honestly don't know, but I do know that the Civil War did not settle that difficult question.
It's true that Texas did not include an option to secede when it joined the union, but I seem to recall that Virginia and New York did. The logic was that if those two states could have that right, then all states must have it. I also understand that this theory was taught at West Point until the 1840s.
Does the Constitution sanction or prohibit secession? If the Constitution is silent, wasn't it Lincoln who created the prohibition and, if so, under what authority?
Addressed in the 9th and 10th Amendments. The prohibition against secession is based solely on the doctrine of "Might makes Right". n nOf course, insurrection against the government is by definition, treason. nRight up until it profits, in which case none dare call it treason.
Under the authority of his army. It's certainly not true that it's clear the Constitution prohibits secession.
I fully agree with Mr. Tobin that talk of secession is completely beyond the bounds of reasonable political discussion. But I also recognize President Obama's culpability in widening the divisions in our nation, and encouraging some to feel that they are now outsiders here. n nWhether the issue is taxation or the Second Amendment, listening to the president cleave away at the fissures in our society cannot help but give the impression that rather than trying to find solutions to our various controversies, he'd much rather deepen them, even to the point of fomenting unrest. Is he seeking to provoke some manner of insurrection? If so, the new-age secessionists are simply playing into his hands.
only a tiny minority of Texans supports secession n nAnd you know this how? n nClue: secession. It's not for just whack jobs anymore.
When 126,000 people out of a population of 26,000,000 sign a petition supporting secession, that is indeed a tiny minority – you do the math!
Whatever can't go on, won't–and this country, borrowing 40% of what it spends, incapable of changing course, and increasingly divided in irreconcilable ways, can't go on. You can try and forbid people to talk about secession, and not too many will for a while–but they'll talk about federalism, limited government and the 10th amendment instead, and they'll get called wingnuts and tea baggers when they do, and if they try to enforce laws or allow for constitutionally guaranteed freedoms that the feds don't want to enforce and protect, they will get sued and, eventually, occupied and oppressed. But we'll keep getting broker and broker, and the government's patent lack of interest in defending the borders, defending our interests in the world, protecting our right to say what we want about, say, gay marriage or Islam, or even passing budgets, will become increasingly obvious. Sooner or later people will start using the "S" word, whether you say they are very bad for doing so or not.
I'll try for a third time to get a comment posted here (testing the bounds of tolerance). n nThere is no basis for assuming that the American union, unlike all other unions, ever, should be guaranteed perpetuity. n nAccording to our own founding document, people have the right to separate from political orders that refuse to acknowledge their rights; there is no guarantee that the US will not become such an order; or, for that matter, depending on your interpretation of those rights, and their hierarchy of importance for you, that it hasn't already. n nThe possibility of secession serves the same purpose as bearing arms and maintaining a nuclear deterrent: making clear in advance the limits of the consequences potential abusers of power will face encourages them to engage in those abuses without limits. More precisely–if our leftist rulers know that the red states will never, ever secede, they can do whatever they like to us. n nWhy are you so afraid of discussing this?
Because Lincoln is deified, even on the right, because of the slavery issue. In many ways his presidency was more tyrannical than, say, Wilson's whomconservatives rightly loathe.
Your'e addressing the "Why are you so afraid of discussing this", I assume, which I posted after my first two comments had not been posted for around 5 hours, so I assumed I was being censored (maybe I was, and they changed their mind; maybe they have too few moderators). Still, it's a good question, one that could even be addressed to the rather hysterical post itself. I think it's more a question of the ideological formation of neo-conservatives, who are former leftists responding to the abandonment of patriotism (and social order) on the left in the 60s (while nevertheless accepting the entire post-New Deal welfare state). Even younger neo-cons who have come in after that formative set of experiences have imbibed the super-patriotism which they feel distinguishes them from the left. The possibility of a kind of post-patriotism on the right, a lack of faith in America, therefore terrifies them.
The current growling about secession is unquestionably out of the question. It is unrealistic and in good part a function of racist resentment of President Obama. n nBut the country is dividing. People are sliding into opposite camps motivated far less by racism than ideology and self interest. Most of the taxes are paid by a small part of the population. And an ever larger part of the electorate is voting in ignorance, and with selfish indifference to the larger good. Since our politicians are self serving and myopic, this voting pattern will produce administrations whose strategic decisions will lead to the decline and wrecking of this country. n nAs that prospect becomes ever clearer a substantial number of individuals in every part of the population will recoil at the prospect of going down in flames. They will refuse to bind their lives and their children's lives to an obtuse and self destructive majority. That will pull the nation apart. n nIn 1861 the South, strong in ideology and lethargic in economic development, sought to drop away from an energetic and ambitious North which understood the future and refused to be anchored to stagnation and decline. Its inherent advantage in financial and intellectual capacity and industrial energy, made the North the predictable winner. n nA new version of that may well see an ambitious, energetic, enterprising part of the population refusing to be held prisoner by the destructive dictates of a dull and sluggish majority. And because the former will have the advantage in energy, know how and financial strength, it will succeed. n nUltimately the nation may reunite but on the basis of a franchise restricted, as it was in the early days of the Republic, to citizens who can demonstrate their hardheadedness with property and learning.
Yes, and Obama is making all this much worse.
Your terror at publicizing explicit justifications for considering secession seriously is very revealing.
Following Tobin's Elitist logic, we should never have been a nation at all. Every single point he makes, is almost cut and paste from King George's stated reasons for sending his armies on the rampage throughout the original 13 Colonies. n nAnd, I would like Joker Tobin to riddle us this…. If Secession is not an option, then why after the Civil War, did each state of the Confederacy have to re-apply for entry back into the Union and have to go through the entire statehood process used on newly formed US Territories? If Secession were illegal, then none of that should have needed. Just put down the crazy white boys and call it day? Right?? n nTobin doesn't seem to understand, that ratification of the Constitution by each of the original states is what actually formed the United States. Not a Fatwa From Fuhrer Obama.
We live in a time when prominent professors on constitutional law advocate outright ignoring the constitution. Prominent progressive pundits say that Lincoln didn't go far enough, and that the South need to be politically isolated. Presidents blatantly ignore the limits on their office, defy court rulings, and legislate from the Oval Office because they know that no abuse of power will garner enough votes for impeachment. A healthcare law the majority of people didn't want was passed in an undemocratic fashion, but will be impossible to overturn in a way that follows parliamentary procedure. One side believes in minimal gun control while the other only trust the government to have arms. People who believe abortion to be murder are no longer allowed to live by their religious conscience, and now must partake of it via paying for it in insurance. Both sides decry the other as Nazi fascists. n nIt seems to me that the country is reaching a point where their is no middle way, or compromise between to the two dominant factions. To speak of peaceful secession is not to speak of war, or treason. It is to try to find a way in which both sides can live in peace without spilling blood. Let the blue state have their desire to make their own country in their own image, and let the red states do the same. Whether this is a right already available to the states, or one that needs a constitutional amendment is up for debate, but I fail to see the treason in it. If we are the greatest, and freest country in the world, then we should not need to force anyone or any state to stay.
So secession was associated with slavery in the 19th century. So was the Democratic party. Things change. n nAny state in the country wants to secede, okay by me (not that my opinion matters!). I can understand why a lot of states wouldn't want to be sunk by this Obamanation. Of course it won't happen, but that doesn't stop Tobin from pointlessly clucking, as is his wont.
We live in a time when prominent professors on constitutional law advocate outright ignoring the constitution. Prominent progressive pundits say that Lincoln didn't go far enough, and that the South need to be politically isolated. Presidents blatantly ignore the limits on their office, defy court rulings, and legislate from the Oval Office because they know that no abuse of power will garner enough votes for impeachment. A healthcare law the majority of people didn't want was passed in an undemocratic fashion, but will be impossible to overturn in a way that follows parliamentary procedure. One side believes in minimal gun control while the other only trust the government to have arms. People who believe abortion to be murder are no longer allowed to live by their religious conscience, and now must partake of it via paying for it in insurance. Both sides decry the other as Nazi fascists.
Well, I see my comments finally made it up here (not my first one, though), so I'll apologize for assuming that you were censoring my views.
As a retired Infantry officer I should be optimistic about our country. I am not. I do not see how the factions competing for the soul of this country can reconcile without one submitting its principles to the other. We are too far apart on too many fundamental issues. I see a New United States of America separate and apart. Same flag with fewer stars, Same Constitution with a few additional amendments. Let our Blue brothers continue their experiment. Let the New United States of America rededicate itself to our founding principles.
While Texas has no right to leave the union, many Americans are leaving Obama’s America behind and going to Texas much as many Americans left America and went there in the 1820s. California and New York are losing population to Texas–indeed New York lost two Congressmen and electoral votes while, for the first time in its existence California gained none. So, while secession is not the answer, voting with one’s feet certainly is.
how about excision? nTHROW california OUT of the Union, cut it out just as you would any other cancerous tumor threatening the health of the body(politic) n
Friendly Divorce? I don’t feel confident about the state and future of our union. I don’t believe that we are working toward common purposes. Several comments in this thread point to significant social, moral and legal divides between the two factions that are competing for the soul and future of this nation. Maybe it is time for a friendly divorce. Nothing is insoluble. I see a New United States of America. Same flag with fewer stars. Same Constitution with a few amendments. Let’s have a friendly divorce and let our Blue brothers continue their experiment in their own space, time and on their dime. Let the New United States of America rededicate to the founding principles.