Ron Paul and confederacy

[christagious]

Kind of going along with the question that someone else asked about the flag.

If the southern states decided that they wanted to secede and become the CSA, what would RP as president do about that?

 

[christagious]

It's just a dumb, hypothetical question. I'm just asking out of curiosity of your opinions

 

[jmag]

I doubt he would claim a right of the federal government to act with force or otherwise to prevent any state from seceding.

 

[nate895]

I think he thinks secession is Constitutional, but that's a stupid question since most of Southerners who supported secession are now Paul supporters.

 

[Swmorgan77]

Kind of going along with the question that someone else asked about the flag.

If the southern states decided that they wanted to secede and become the CSA, what would RP as president do about that?

Its a very common mistake to confuse support for secession by a state, in principle, with support for the confederacy or support of slavery.

I think it is amply clear that the States had a right to secede from the Union. There were many Northern states that often proposed or threatened secession over various issues long before the Civil War. For the 100 years or so before the Civil War secession as the right of a State was presumed, and considered a final "check" against Federal abuse, as advocated by Jefferson in his principles of '98 proposal. Its also equally clear that the founders wanted the union to stay together, particularly Washington. I would never maintain that secession is a positive thing, but rather it is a right held by the States as principles of the contract (the Constitution) and the use of it would be a sign of such abuse and corruption at the Federal level that a State had no recourse for redress other than this undesireable last resort.

The problem is that when the Southern States did it, they got co-opted into a new "union" that was just as bad as the one they left, which inflated currency and obligated them into a war that they lost.

I think if individual States had seceded, and stayed separate from other states, resolving their individual gripes with Congress they probably would have all found their way voluntarily back in to the Union pretty quickly since there were so many incentives for both sides to do so. Also, had the southern states stayed separate and only defended themselves then the public opinion battle surrounding the military efforts to force these states back into the Union would have had a very different result. Because they formed a "counter-union" and actually became militarily aggressive, they played right into the Northern industrialists hands and allowed the conflict to be characterized as a great moral struggle.

There were States which seceded but then did not join the confederacy, as well as States in the Union that did not join the war.

In these ways, the Civil War was a product of a conflict between two competing strong, centralized Nationalistic governments (the Union and the Confederacy), and not a product of secession at all. There was no foregone conclusion that secession had to result in war, but the actions of both of these nationalistic Unions in the aftermath is what brought about the war.

 

[Bittle]

Secession does not mean slavery, etc., as Swmorgan77 above me here pointed out. I think a lot of folks think that believe in ideals like that, even today, have something wrong about them. There are plenty of folks who are "separatists" that like what Paul is saying. I sympathize with their views. I don't see anything criminal about it, unless they're planning on starting a war or something with the United States.

Only problem with seceding states is having to change the "fifty nifty" song.

 

[nate895]

The problem is that when the Southern States did it, they got co-opted into a new "union" that was just as bad as the one they left, which inflated currency and obligated them into a war that they lost.

I think if individual States had seceded, and stayed separate from other states, resolving their individual gripes with Congress they probably would have all found their way voluntarily back in to the Union pretty quickly since there were so many incentives for both sides to do so. Also, had the southern states stayed separate and only defended themselves then the public opinion battle surrounding the military efforts to force these states back into the Union would have had a very different result. Because they formed a "counter-union" and actually became militarily aggressive, they played right into the Northern industrialists hands and allowed the conflict to be characterized as a great moral struggle.

There were States which seceded but then did not join the confederacy, as well as States in the Union that did not join the war.

In these ways, the Civil War was a product of a conflict between two competing strong, centralized Nationalistic governments (the Union and the Confederacy), and not a product of secession at all. There was no foregone conclusion that secession had to result in war, but the actions of both of these nationalistic Unions in the aftermath is what brought about the war.

When did the South become militarily aggressive? Would you let a foreign nation get taxes from ships in your ports?

The Confederacy was slightly more nationalistic than the UN is today. They were about as states' rights oriented as one could get with a central government.

 

[axiomata]

Personally, I think the constitution should be amended to make it absolutely clear how secession works.

In my opinion, if a state or group of states decide they want to secede (and their decision may be reached however they choose), then a majority or two thirds or three fifths vote (not sure which) in the senate will determine the outcome.

 

[nate895]

Personally, I think the constitution should be amended to make it absolutely clear how secession works.

In my opinion, if a state or group of states decide they want to secede (and their decision may be reached however they choose), then a majority or two thirds or three fifths vote (not sure which) in the senate will determine the outcome.

The Senate shouldn't be able to do that. Down in Northern California, every few years the residents get pissed that the electoral vote went to a Democrat, and so they try to secede, and yet the rest of the state says no because they want to keep the electoral votes (and probably the cheap water).

 

[axiomata]

The Senate shouldn't be able to do that. Down in Northern California, every few years the residents get pissed that the electoral vote went to a Democrat, and so they try to secede, and yet the rest of the state says no because they want to keep the electoral votes (and probably the cheap water).

That's actually a good example to support my position. If anytime a group of people don't get their way and are allowed to secede or threaten to secede then the union would not last more than a week. Early on in our history we found this out when the Articles of Confederation failed and were replaced by the Constitution, thus forming a more perfect union.

If Ron Paul is elected, and he convinces congress to stop subsidizing the farm industry, I have no doubt that many states here would threaten secession if they thought it would give them back their subsidies. The rest of the states would of course give in to their demands. It's just not how this government is supposed to work.

We have majority rule and minority right not majority rule and minorities go start your own country. I'll admit, it gets a lot more trickier when the minority wants to secede because their rights are not even acknowledged in the first place. In cases like that I think a violent Revolution is inevitable.

 

[nate895]

That's actually a good example to support my position. If anytime a group of people don't get their way and are allowed to secede or threaten to secede then the union would not last more than a week. Early on in our history we found this out when the Articles of Confederation failed and were replaced by the Constitution, thus forming a more perfect union.

If Ron Paul is elected, and he convinces congress to stop subsidizing the farm industry, I have no doubt that many states here would threaten secession if they thought it would give them back their subsidies. The rest of the states would of course give in to their demands. It's just not how this government is supposed to work.

We have majority rule and minority right not majority rule and minorities go start your own country. I'll admit, it gets a lot more trickier when the minority wants to secede because their rights are not even acknowledged in the first place. In cases like that I think a violent Revolution is inevitable.

But would the voters want to leave over something so trivial. The South threatened to secede for a long time before it did so. The only time a voter would sacrifice the overwhelming benefits of the Union would be if they had no other choice, and farming subsidies would be lost forever if they seceded.

The only reasons that a super majority of voters would vote to secede would be if their liberties were under immediate threat.

 

[gang]

The right to secede is a necessary counterpart to democracy.
When this right is not granted, the minority in a society is always and forever doomed to be slaves of a majority.

Whether people choose to secede or not depends on their opportunity costs. There are no universally valid answers.

 

[PC_for_Paul]

I think that's what we lost in the Civil War. Why should the process of leaving be any different from the process used to join?

Let me ask you this, can you claim these are the "United States of America" if any of those states are held in this union by force?

The process should not be easy, and should require 3/4ths majority in the State legislature, and maybe then also put to the ballot. Returning should be the same, except done in DC.

What is not good is setting the precedents that the only way to leave the union is by death. What is this the Mafia?

But I don't think this is anything Ron needs to talk about, way too many things that need more attention as this, we have to restore the constitution first, without all this is moot.

 

[Todesherr]

The right to secede is a necessary counterpart to democracy.
When this right is not granted, the minority in a society is always and forever doomed to be slaves of a majority.

Whether people choose to secede or not depends on their opportunity costs. There are no universally valid answers.

Except in Ayn Rand's books...

 

[Swmorgan77]

When did the South become militarily aggressive? Would you let a foreign nation get taxes from ships in your ports?

The Confederacy was slightly more nationalistic than the UN is today. They were about as states' rights oriented as one could get with a central government.

Gettysburg happened in Pennsylvania. Why were they there?

My point is if the States had stayed separate and only defended their individual terroritry things could have been very different.