Walter Williams on Nullification, Secession and More

[Occam's Banana]

From today’s Tom Woods Show. Visit Williams at his website.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6rBVpAu5aA

 

[Occam's Banana]

Also of interest ...

http://tomwoods.com/blog/beware-citizen-nullification-is-catching-on/

Thanks to James Corbett for this great pro-nullification, anti-Maddow video, featuring clips of the zombie (and I don’t mean Maddow). On nullification, see my StateNullification.com and NullificationFAQ.com.

WARNING: Nullification Is Catching On
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cOcTrclc_8

... NOT "Interview with a Zombie" ...
... GunnyFreedom cameo @ 6:05 ...

 

[gwax23]

Great interview saw the first one yesterday.

 

[Travlyr]

Secession in 1861 was anything but peaceful secession. It was very violent and one of the most misunderstood parts of 1861 secession was that Jefferson Davis intended to be living in the White House by May 1, 1861.

The Siege of Washington: The Untold Story of the Twelve Days That Shook the Union

"Jefferson Davis planned to be living in the White House by May 1, according to the plans of his wife, Varina. On April 17th, New York insurance executive William Holdredge wrote Secretary of State William H. Seward in exasperation, informing him that the "wife of the Rebel President Davis has had the imprudence to send cards to her lady acquaintances at the Saint Nicholas" - a favorite New York hotel for visiting Southerners - "inviting them to attend her reception in the White House at Washington on the first of May."

"On April 12, 1861 only hours after Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in the Charleston harbor, Confederate Secretary of War Leroy P. Walker appeared before a jubilant crowd in Montgomery, Alabama. "No man can tell when the war this day commenced will end," Walker thundered from the balcony of the Exchange Hotel, at the heart of the Confederate capital, "but I will prophesy that the flag which now floats the breeze here will float over the dome of the old capitol at Washington before the first of May."

 

[Travlyr]

James Madison on Secession

James Madison in his old age lived through the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833. He was against nullification and secession, which he saw lurking clearly in the background of the Crisis. As the author of the Virginia Resolution of 1798 which contended that Congress had no power to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, Madison had his own words thrown back at him, and he took pains in his letters to explain the differences between his Virginia Resolution and the revolution South Carolina was attempting to initiate. I find his words on secession to be of great interest in light of the battle over the right to secede fought after Madison was long in his grave. Here is a letter to Nicholas Trist on December 23, 1832 in which Madison makes his position clear.

TO N. P. TRIST. … MAD. MSS.

Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.

Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice.

Read the rest here.

 

[otherone]

Secession in 1861 was anything but peaceful secession.

It's 2014.

 

[Travlyr]

It's 2014.

Secession is not feasible today. No State is anywhere near prepared to secede from the U.S.

 

[otherone]

Secession is not feasible today. No State is anywhere near prepared to secede from the U.S.

So said Moscow prior to the USSR's dissolution. Rome wasn't destroyed overnight. You advocate for an empire, not a federation. States should remain for their benefit, by free association.

 

[Travlyr]

So said Moscow prior to the USSR's dissolution. Rome wasn't destroyed overnight. You advocate for an empire, not a federation. States should remain for their benefit, by free association.

I actually advocate just like Lincoln and Robert E. Lee. Constitutional republics with State's rights.

"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution." - Robert E. Lee

 

[otherone]

Constitutional republics with State's rights.

I believe that a "constitutional republic" should be COMPOSED of STATES advocating for their own interests, not a monolithic central government that has so over-stepped the authority vested to it BY IT'S CONSTITUENT STATES as to make dissent IMPOSSIBLE. How do we reverse this without the threat of secession?

 

[Warlord]

Trav is a troll.... dont get worked up other one!

 

[Travlyr]

I believe that a "constitutional republic" should be COMPOSED of STATES advocating for their own interests, not a monolithic central government that has so over-stepped the authority vested to it BY IT'S CONSTITUENT STATES as to make dissent IMPOSSIBLE. How do we reverse this without the threat of secession?

First we must get people to understand who are the Wizards of Oz behind the curtain. The Pilgrims
Institute for the study of Globalization and Covert Politics

Then, do as Ron Paul has taught us. "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity."

End the Fed and take it from there.

 

[Travlyr]

Trav is a troll.... dont get worked up other one!

A truth telling troll working diligently for sound money, fully redeemable.

 

[otherone]

Trav is a troll.... dont get worked up other one!

lol.
I like Trav. I'm not worked up, the caps were for emphasis; maybe italics would have been better.

 

[otherone]

End the Fed and take it from there.

I agree. It's the method (or lack thereof) that I take exception to. Washington can't fix itself...

 

[Travlyr]

I agree. It's the method (or lack thereof) that I take exception to. Washington can't fix itself...

I agree. Washington can't fix itself. Heck, they won't even let us have an independent audit of the bank. The original intent of the U.S. Constitution was just fine except for the slavery issue and the hatred of the native Americans. The Anti-Federalists actually won but like all power once someone gets a taste of it it grows. After the central bankers go away, then some fundamental changes could be made such as repealing the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments. That would help a lot. I don't think secession would be good but nullification is appropriate.

 

[Origanalist]

I agree. Washington can't fix itself. Heck, they won't even let us have an independent audit of the bank. The original intent of the U.S. Constitution was just fine except for the slavery issue and the hatred of the native Americans. The Anti-Federalists actually won but like all power once someone gets a taste of it it grows. After the central bankers go away, then some fundamental changes could be made such as repealing the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments. That would help a lot. I don't think secession would be good but nullification is appropriate.

I disagree with that, I think seccesion would be very good. this whole thing has become a self feeding monster that can only be killed if it's taken apart. It has grown too large to treat and some amputation is necessary to save what health is left.

The central bankers will not just go away, and boobus is too apathetic to make them.

 

[Travlyr]

I disagree with that, I think seccesion would be very good. this whole thing has become a self feeding monster that can only be killed if it's taken apart. It has grown too large to treat and some amputation is necessary to save what health is left.

The central bankers will not just go away, and boobus is too apathetic to make them.

I believe that the only way to win our freedom is to make the central bankers go away. Once they get audited then their shenanigans will be exposed for all to see. An audit will be the first step to the end.

One of the commenters over at The Daily Bell had this to say about the Articles of Confederation,

thesafesurfer • 16 days ago
Wendy doesn't mention the problems of the Article of Confederation at all. There were 14 different currencies under the Articles because each state was allowed it's own currency and the Confederation Congress had the worthless Continental Dollar. There was no enforcement of contracts across state lines because there was no Supreme Court to overrule proprietary actions by individual state courts. There wasn't a commerce clause so each state could tax the goods of another state crossing its borders. Individual states passed stay laws that prevented creditors from collecting debts. Commerce between the individual states was collapsing and so was our unity. A new nation "needs unity" to survive.

Basically the economy of the newly independent United States was collapsing from 1783-86. The Articles of Confederation failed to produce an economic union. See the European Union for a modern representation of the failure of the same type of economic failure.

thesafesurfer wendymcelroy • 15 days ago
If you don't see currency issues as a problem in the Confederation period then I have to say you do not demonstrate an in depth familiarity with the period from January 1783 when we became independent after the signing of the Treaty of Paris and the fall of 1786 when commercial deterioration generated the Annapolis Convention and Shay's Rebellion created a critical mass of support for the May, 1787 convention in Philadelphia that created the Constitution. When you read the primary documents of the time individuals engaged in commerce constantly complained about various, unreliable state currencies to the point that interstate trade diminished markedly. Conditions deteriorated to the point that individual states had to pass laws requiring that merchants to accept their state currencies for transactions. If individual state currencies did not represent a problem why did states have to pass currency laws to mandate their use and acceptance? The inflationary aspects of individual currencies was the problem and varied dramatically between states.

Your statement that "the coup d'état that the Constitutional Convention represented is fairly standard history" is also inaccurate. There is a broad range of debate on the Articles of Confederation economy from the voluminous works of Merrill Jensen to Jonathan Chu's recent work.

In your post you move straight from Confederation currency issues to individual aspects of the Constitution and explanations of their purpose and motivations. I did not comment on this in my first post and am not commenting on it in this post. I directed my response toward your characterization of the period from 1783 to 1786 under the Articles of Confederation government. The Constitution is a separate matter that frankly I do not take exception to in your article or your post article comments in this thread. You simply need to let your comments on the Constitution stand on their own merits and omit the shallow and incomplete representation of the Confederation period you use to introduce and transition to your view of the Constitution.

I agree with him.

 

[Origanalist]

The Articles of Confederation failed to produce an economic union. See the European Union for a modern representation of the failure of the same type of economic failure.

Well, now we have that economic union. It's grand isn't it? I wish I had your optimism that we can just open peoples eyes and the central banking system will just wither away from the heat of righteous wrath. I don't have that kind of faith in my fellow countrymen. The more likely reaction would meh, what's on tv tonight honey?

 

[otherone]

Well, now we have that economic union. It's grand isn't it?

eat economic union, bitches!