Michael Peck criticises Ron Paul on secession

Yeah, we're making an anti-war argument here and not a pro-south one. The institution of slavery was barbaric, but it doesn't justify a war that killed hundreds of thousands considering the slaves could have been freed peacefully like they were in every other country.

I would actually be ok with the war if it was fought for slavery. But of course it wasn't. Lincoln's inseparable union set a precedent that shaped this nation's history into the tyranny it is today.

It's funny, and also greatly irritating, how apparently the motives of the North have changed over the years, from the aggressive enslavement of the South, to a noble goal of freeing humans from bondage...

Most Americans idolize the man that set us on the path to the tyranny we have today... fucked up country this is...
 
"Secession" aside, I certainly agree that Republican elected officals need to make efforts to improve this nation & not just be nay sayers.
 
In Reality, Americans of the 1780's should have stuck with the Articles and never ratified the current Constitution.
 
I would actually be ok with the war if it was fought for slavery. .............................

Why? What business did a yankee State having butting in the affairs of the South? Yankees had plenty in their own States to clean up- say the use of immigrant factory workers as disposable tools to be tossed out when they broke. Southern plantations did not do that. look up the stats- a serf growing cotton in the South had a greater life expectancy than a nortern industrial worker in 1860.
 
Secession is the absolute worst thing you can do to a statist. They will hurl themselves by the dozen on your attempt to even discuss leaving slavery. It is heresy absolute. For those who worship the state, it is the equivalent of saying there is no God called state. The heretic must be put down! Statist are fundemental religious fanatics in every sense; their religion is simply the nation state.
 
Last edited:
Why? What business did a yankee State having butting in the affairs of the South? Yankees had plenty in their own States to clean up- say the use of immigrant factory workers as disposable tools to be tossed out when they broke. Southern plantations did not do that. look up the stats- a serf growing cotton in the South had a greater life expectancy than a nortern industrial worker in 1860.

I agree, that strategically and pragmatically the North going to war to free the slaves may not be a good idea. Morally though, I have nothing against people voluntarily choosing to go to war to free people from slavery (which of course isn't why they went to war, and it wasn't voluntary, but I hope you get my point)
 
Last edited:
Is there a fundamental right to secede? Sure there is, in the same way that robbing your neighbor’s house can be justified as a fundamental right if you are starving.

Uhhh..No, robbing anyone for any reason is not a "fundamental right". This guy has a weird sence of what rigths are....he must be a statist. wow.
 
Uhhh..No, robbing anyone for any reason is not a "fundamental right". This guy has a weird sence of what rigths are....he must be a statist. wow.

Yeah, lol, what the heck?

So why did we have a right to separate from Great Britain? We certainly weren't "starving". Compared to the vast majority of the world at that time we were doing pretty great. So what gave us the right to leave? If you asked any lawyer in Britain he would have told you it was illegal to secede as we did.
 
Secession is the absolute worst thing you can do to a statist. They will hurl themselves by the dozen on your attempt to even discuss leaving slavery. It is heresy absolute. For those who worship the state, it the equivalent in saying there is no God called state. The heretic must be put down! Fundemental religious fanatics in every sense; their religion is simply the nation state.

Indeed. Mentioning secession is akin to a slave conspiring to escape. It's simply not allowed.
 
Lord Acton, a British statesman well known for his declaration that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, in a November 4, 1866 letter to Robert E. Lee wrote, "I saw in States Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy....I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The material prosperity of the North," said the delegates to Georgia's secession convention, "was dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"As to the cause of the war," claimed antebellum Georgia businessman Mark Anthony Cooper, "it is chargeable not to the abolition of slavery, which was only an incident and exciting cause, but to the capital of the country seeking to control the government through its indebtedness and to foster itself by exceptions and immunities and by profits on the currencies made and controlled by it. War alone could furnish a pretext for doing what it desired."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel".... Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....". ..... London Times of 7 Nov 1861

"Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

"They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

"At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

"the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade...." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. "

Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That slavery was the cause for Lincoln's War rings about as true as a 77 year old Doctor defending secession so we can all smoke pot.
 
Well if [the South] wanted to leave in peace then why did they attack Fort Sumter?

Because Lincoln successfully goaded them into doing so. It was the single stupidest thing that they could have done, and they went and put their foot right in it.

In the north, the idea of going to war over secession was *very* unpopular - until Ft. Sumter. Whoever was responsible for that decision is the man who doomed the CSA.

...

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result. " ~ Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861

"The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

"We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it." ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.
 
Yeah, lol, what the heck?

So why did we have a right to separate from Great Britain? We certainly weren't "starving". Compared to the vast majority of the world at that time we were doing pretty great. So what gave us the right to leave? If you asked any lawyer in Britain he would have told you it was illegal to secede as we did.

Indeed, and taxes going to Britain were from 1% to 2% of national income (depending on where you lived). Massachusetts was the only colony subject to the Coercive Acts, and this was in response to the destruction of millions of dollars worth of tea in Boston Harbor. Only a third of the colonists wanted to secede.
 
who is this person?

why do we care?

But secession isn't only about the south. The NORTH EASTern states wanted to secede to get away from the slave owning states, as well. Were THEY neoconfederate?
 
Last edited:
Secession is a tool as well as a procedure. To say it has anything to do with the civil war is to say that a butcher knife is used only for purposes you disagree with.
 
The RIGHT to secession is just as important as the act itself. A government that explicitly acknowledges the right to secession is less likely to fall prey to the abuses of power for which the only remedy is secession. Should abuses occur anyway, the People have a built-in peaceful alternative.
 
Back
Top