Reagan. Is he still dead?

Frrrist-hah.

"tapping out the code"?

...

"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. "

Yup.

And old Ron Paul is right there with them on that score.

I won't argue that Reagan didn't use racism to appeal to white people. I'm sure he did that too. States rights; however, is a different subject entirely and has nothing to do with race. The idea of States being able to decide their own future without the thumb of the Federal Government in all of their affairs has been around since the colonies. You can argue that the civil war started because some Southern states wanted to keep slavery legal. You'd be right and wrong, not all states joined the confederacy because they wanted slaves. Certainly, most people in southern states didn't have slaves. Tennessee and Virginia that I know of joined only after the Lincoln ordered them to fight their fellow southerners. They found it appalling the idea that someone should die because they didn't want to be ruled by another entity. We know how history has worked out. Today, the Federal government is supreme. Under the Fed, the President is supreme. That accumulation of power would never have happened under a State oriented system. The checks and balances have been lost, that is not an argument for slavery. Thats an argument for liberty and democracy. Though some southerners may rally to the cause because of slavery, most of us do it for purely ideological reasons. I just felt I should point that out in case any of you yankees were confused ;-)

I love it when our side piles on a wingnut for certifiable stupidity. Reagan was an evil and noxious man and his canonization by the right is truly morally repellent. Maybe Bobo will go back to sulking the the basement and wanking over his collection of Capt. America comics.

"tapping out the code"

Meaning more subtle than George Allen but not so subtle that Neanderthals miss it. The talk about Reagan is because that's what the right wing politicos want the current crop to do. Be a great uniter, but not really.

Ricky @ 9:

I won't argue that Reagan didn't use racism to appeal to white people. I'm sure he did that too. States rights; however, is a different subject entirely and has nothing to do with race. The idea of States being able to decide their own future without the thumb of the Federal Government in all of their affairs has been around since the colonies. You can argue that the civil war started because some Southern states wanted to keep slavery legal. You'd be right and wrong, not all states joined the confederacy because they wanted slaves. Certainly, most people in southern states didn't have slaves. Tennessee and Virginia that I know of joined only after the Lincoln ordered them to fight their fellow southerners. They found it appalling the idea that someone should die because they didn't want to be ruled by another entity. We know how history has worked out. Today, the Federal government is supreme. Under the Fed, the President is supreme. That accumulation of power would never have happened under a State oriented system. The checks and balances have been lost, that is not an argument for slavery. Thats an argument for liberty and democracy. Though some southerners may rally to the cause because of slavery, most of us do it for purely ideological reasons. I just felt I should point that out in case any of you yankees were confused ;-)

Yeah right. And the civil war was "the War of Northern Aggression."

You're being disenginious here. Herbert's article isn't about some sort of arcane constitutional issue. It's referencing the strategy used by southern states to block civil rights legislation. The notion that 'states rights' meant that the federal government had no business interfering in southern 'social customs' like denying African Americans the vote, or a seat at a public lunch counter.

For any American over 50 this is a lived memory. Not to mention a matter of public record as an electoral strategy. Try googling "Lee Atwater" "nigger" and "states rights."

great opin. i forgot he was one of few voice at the time i missed during the subscription blackout

Nice job Herbert. I've had the revisionist history of Ronald the Elder up to here. He ran on racism, he was virulently anti-union, and he gave an open invitation to mega-corps to screw their employees. Painting the pig is just that. He was a mean spirited prick that couldn't act his way out of a wet bag.

Ricky says

"Certainly, most people in southern states didn’t have slaves. Tennessee and Virginia that I know of joined only after the Lincoln ordered them to fight their fellow southerners."

Clever apology for "The Southern Way Of Life" which boiled down to black people doing most of the labor that fueled the Confederate economy, whilst a few white slave owners drank mint juli's and counted their money. They got a pass on fighting for slavery while southern white trash, who worked the menial jobs considered not suitable for slaves, did most of the fighting and dying for so called "states rights" aka Slavery.

Tenn. and Virginia were no different, whatever their leaders might have pontificated at the time. It was the same for the southeastern part of Kentucky where I grew up. Their's was a quasi fascist ideology [southern way of life] that gave us centuries of shame and dishonor called slavery, not to mention a very bloody civil war. While slavery has long since abated the seeds of reasoning that caused it remain, even if semi-dormant.

Reading columnists like Herbert and Krugman make me proud to be a liberal.

As for Brooks, well, he's another severely messed-up right-winger.

Screw Reagan. I've always rather charitably referred to him as the "amiable dunce."

He was actually much worse than that.

I'm impressed. I read Herbert this morning, thought it was a great op-ed, and wondered if anyone would notice. Nice job C & L. And Baba Booey to ya'll!

pepper @ 18:

Ricky, the federalist system was created to keep the majority from tampering on the minority and to prevent real democracy. This is why, along with representative democracy, we have politicians in both parties basically ignoring public opinion on almost every major issue. The people who created the system were (hate to say it, it's been said so much it's cliché) white, rich property owners. There was a great debate about the problem of a majority of working people dominating the rich minority, which was surmised by Madison who wanted to “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority". That's why, when you argue with some on the right about "democracy" many times they'll correct you and say they disagree with "democracy" and agree with "republicanism" or "federalism". What you said would be true if economics didn't dominate the way it does.

Capital plays one state off of the other. If I'm a corporation and the state I'm in doesn't give me enough kick backs I can use another state as leverage or just leave for that state. It gives those who own large amounts of money all the power and weakens direct democracy, limiting our options. It’s worse now, since the general idea is used in capital liberalization within globalization.

What nearly everyone misses in these arguments is the 3/5 Compromise and it's effect on the Republic.

With every slave countin' as 3/5 of a person fer the purposes of divvyin' up Congressional districts, the voters in the slave states were over-represented in the House- and by the way it was based upon the number of House seats, the Electoral College. This meant that the slave states could broker both legislation in the House and Presidential elections in the Electoral College(and don't ferget that when candidates fail to receive a majority in that body, the election devolves to the Congress). So fer about 40 or 50 years the slave states comfortably controlled the government.

But when immigration patterns started to show that new arrivals went mainly to the free states, the slave states saw the writin' on the wall and forced the Missouri Compromise: if a new free state wanted to enter the Union, a new slave state must be twinned with it. This kept the South in control, yet that control was still slippin' away.

Then came the Irish Potato Famine in 1847 and the European revolutions of 1848, and a huge wave of immigrants hit the shores, once again benefiting the North. There were so many immigrants that the South knew that their time as the power in the Union was up. When the North forced through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the South's only remedy was to flood Kansas with sympathetic kin. When they failed to make Kansas a slave state, the southern sympathizers began a guerilla war: hence, Bleeding Kansas.

Finally, when southern Democrats and northern Democrats splinterd, the war was set in motion. First the more heavily slave-populated states skulked away, followed by those states like Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia(not surprisingly these 3 states, late to secession, contained vigorous support fer the Union cause throughout the war: the eastern 1/3 of TN, western NC, and western VA- it's own state by the end of the war). The slave states with the least amount of slaves- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri- stayed in the Union.

Okay, presumptuous of me to give a history lesson here, but it's the only way to prove my point: The only States' Right that the South was fightin' for was their own right to make the rules and captain the team. When they didn't get their way, they decided to take the ball and go home. Only the ball belonged to all of the states- it belonged to the Union.

And the Media aided him in his underground stream of racism, they ate that crap up and spewed it over the entire population.

Raygun was the first sign that the media was bought and paid for. There's no way in the face of the facts they could have allowed the mississippi speech, the bitburg speech, Iran-contra, et al, to go on. They knew he and his crew broke the law.

I'm glad that Krugman is bitchslapping brooks. brooks' idiocy is intolerable to me.

Ronnie also said "If you've seen one redwood, you've seen them all." Started us all down this road to global warming hell. What a hero.

Excellent explanation, Andy!

Oh, and ketchup isn't the only vegetable, Ronnie.

oh leave Ronnie Raygun alone. He's burning in hell right now.

grate @ 5:

"tapping out the code"?

Damn, these repugs love to tap. They do it in the men's room, now this.

john:

Yeah right. And the civil war was “the War of Northern Aggression.”

You’re being disenginious here. Herbert’s article isn’t about some sort of arcane constitutional issue. It’s referencing the strategy used by southern states to block civil rights legislation. The notion that ’states rights’ meant that the federal government had no business interfering in southern ’social customs’ like denying African Americans the vote, or a seat at a public lunch counter.

For any American over 50 this is a lived memory. Not to mention a matter of public record as an electoral strategy. Try googling “Lee Atwater” “nigger” and “states rights.”

No I'm not being disengenious, my only point is that the same event can mean different things to different people. It nearly always does. I'm thirty, I'm not trying to block civil rights legislation. I'm just hoping I have a few rights left. The people my age are in the same boat.

As to the past.
When ever the Civil war comes up, we all act as if we were there ourselves. We weren't. Then we pretend as if "we" had moral superiority. Northerners act as if they were the saviors of the slaves and the down trodden of society (which is BS). Southerners act as if they were fighting for the right of self determination (which is BS). Like all wars, it was about power and money with the vast majority of people doing the dieing never understanding why they needed to die at all. Its just easier for Northerners to think at least we're not as bad as those rednecks down south. Go up a few states and you'll be free. Free to be hated, free to be worked to death for sustenance pay...

Now for the present.
When southerns talk about the war, its worth remembering that it was fought down here. Our homes were burned, our crops ruined, men, women, and children were killed. Right here. Yankee's see it like they see Iraq. A war fought some place else. We see people who's homes were invaded (because they were). Its not that we get all sentimental about keeping people in chains, the deep feelings down here come from protecting your land, your home. You'll get the attention of people by talking about State's Rights, but there not thinking about bondage. They're thinking about people invading their homes, thats what State's Rights means to me. We lost. Its a little intimidating to think someone could bull-dose your house because they don't think you can govern yourself. It strikes a cord in even an honest man. You only want to see the war as a matter of slavery. You only want us to see the war as a matter of slavery. Theres this derision whenever a Notherner mentions the South, plus you want to frame the argument for us, so you can be hollier than thou'. All I want to say is that there are some good people here, maybe even some people better than the least of you. That owning slaves didn't motivate the average confederate soldier is no surprise to anyone who knows history. In that, the North can be just as blind as the South.

To Andy:
You right about the 3/5 compromise. It was to maintain the balance of power between the North and the South. The South never sought to impose slavery on the North. They were only concerned about continueing to make money the way they always had.
Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia didn't join the confederacy because of slaves. They joined the because Lincoln ordered them to provide troops to attack the South (guess you forgot). They thought he overreached his powers. They also knew the war would be fought in their states and that they would be the ones to suffer most no matter what happened.

Now when Bush send troops into Iraq for regime change, thats bad. The Civil war was no different. It was a regime change in the South that Lincoln was after. You won't believe that, because it might cause you some amount of guilt or change the way you think about things. You'll say the North fights for freedom, liberty, and apple pie.

How about Mexicans, Irish, Chinese, Native Americans, where were the wars yall fought for them? I just don't buy the idea that every Northerner is the second coming of Christ and every southerner the devil incarnate.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=416_1194979418

The Reality @ 3:

Frrrist-hah.

The Reality @ 4:

Damn, was listening to this.

No matter, it's still childish, idiotic and annoying.

Lynch one for the Gipper!

Ricky @ 45: "Sherman was a butcher. He didn't believe people mattered period."

You're wrong about that. Sherman was a Southerner who for the first years of the war took a very mild approach. The march on Atlanta was the result of seeing the incredible carnage of the Civil War CLOSE UP (unlike you), and realizing that breaking the Southern will to fight was the only way to end the war.

You want to blame someone, blame the Southern politicians whose racism and greed produced that war. Sherman was no angel, but in a war that bloody, you in your perfection would have been raving mad after years of watching men blown to pieces.

Ricky @ 45 "its the exact same regime change logic Bush uses all the time."

Actually, Bush's greed and racism are not much different from that of those Southern bastards.

The war was unnecessary and wrong. Blaming the generals is the lie of the ages. This was a command decision CRIME -- just like the illegal Iraq invasion. If you want to side with the civilians against the generals, I understand. On the other hand, the Union survived, and I'm a patriot, not a Southern racist. I'm glad that slavery was ended, and the lingering racism of the South a hundred years later remains to show why the North won. Not Sherman, per se -- but right versus wrong.

Ricky @ 9:

They found it appalling the idea that someone should die because they didn't want to be ruled by another entity. We know how history has worked out. Today, the Federal government is supreme. Under the Fed, the President is supreme. That accumulation of power would never have happened under a State oriented system. The checks and balances have been lost, that is not an argument for slavery. Thats an argument for liberty and democracy. Though some southerners may rally to the cause because of slavery, most of us do it for purely ideological reasons. I just felt I should point that out in case any of you yankees were confused ;-)

BULL!
SHIT!

Don't hand us this "States' rights is about liberty" garbage. It has absolutely nothing to do with the liberty granted within American society. The only thing it has ever had anything to do with is freedom from society (i.e. the same freedom that Libertarians pine for) so that redneck trash can have the good ol' boy justice whenever it suits them.

I think the whole Terry Schiavo fiasco blew this "we don't want to be ruled by a higher power" crap out of the water completely. When the white trash of Florida couldn't get the decision they wanted from the state courts, they didn't hesitate for a second to turn to the federal courts. Its only when the federal government hands down a decision that doesn't go with white trash "values" does any redneck retard ever whine about "states rights" - in the case of the Civil War, it was because the federal government said the states that allowed slavery was fucking WRONG!

Palooka @ 50:

And again.

I'm not doubting that Reagan did what he did to guarantee the "white vote". But I wish people would stop equating states rights with slavery.

You and me both. Its funny that something mentioned in the constitution could be turned around and used to subjugate the weak when it was meant to do the exact opposite (give them a voice).

Paul in LA @ 51:

Ricky @ 45 "its the exact same regime change logic Bush uses all the time."

Actually, Bush's greed and racism are not much different from that of those Southern bastards.

The war was unnecessary and wrong. Blaming the generals is the lie of the ages. This was a command decision CRIME -- just like the illegal Iraq invasion. If you want to side with the civilians against the generals, I understand. On the other hand, the Union survived, and I'm a patriot, not a Southern racist. I'm glad that slavery was ended, and the lingering racism of the South a hundred years later remains to show why the North won. Not Sherman, per se -- but right versus wrong.

I'm trying not to fall to your level, but come on man! Right versus wrong, when has any war ever been about right versus wrong? Because Saddam fell, does that make us Right? Of course I want to side with civilians, what kind of morally corrupt person wouldn't side with civilians?

When you denounce all Southerners as racist you do a great injustice to those who fought and fight to this day against prejudice. Just because people may not think or live exactly the way you do doesn't not give you the right to judge them. I take it back, you're not like Bush, he has less pretensee.

Ricky -- the fact that most Southerners didn't have slaves doesn't mean that they didn't want slavery. The fact is that the Southern States suceded from the rightful Union of the United States because they were ignorant racists. They weren't valiant defenders of chivalry, they were the forefathers of NASCAR and the KKK -- they were basically the white trash we still see strewn across the benighted sections of the South. They were the future Republicans of America.

Zenrage @ 53:

Ricky @ 9:

They found it appalling the idea that someone should die because they didn't want to be ruled by another entity. We know how history has worked out. Today, the Federal government is supreme. Under the Fed, the President is supreme. That accumulation of power would never have happened under a State oriented system. The checks and balances have been lost, that is not an argument for slavery. Thats an argument for liberty and democracy. Though some southerners may rally to the cause because of slavery, most of us do it for purely ideological reasons. I just felt I should point that out in case any of you yankees were confused ;-)

BULL!
SHIT!

Don't hand us this "States' rights is about liberty" garbage. It has absolutely nothing to do with the liberty granted within American society. The only thing it has ever had anything to do with is freedom from society (i.e. the same freedom that Libertarians pine for) so that redneck trash can have the good ol' boy justice whenever it suits them.

I think the whole Terry Schiavo fiasco blew this "we don't want to be ruled by a higher power" crap out of the water completely. When the white trash of Florida couldn't get the decision they wanted from the state courts, they didn't hesitate for a second to turn to the federal courts. Its only when the federal government hands down a decision that doesn't go with white trash "values" does any redneck retard ever whine about "states rights" - in the case of the Civil War, it was because the federal government said the states that allowed slavery was fucking WRONG!

I agree with you Zenrage.

It would be a Boss Hogg in all those states.

Paul in LA @ 60:

Hitler should have been stopped when he took the Ruhr. But the British were caught up in the same sort of isolationist love of authority that Ron Paul stands for. They paid for that mistake, and regretably we paid right along with them, after awhile.

OK, usually I agree with a lot of what you say, but I have to pull you up on this one.

Isolationism was not the cause of a lack of desire for armed conflict on the part of the British, it was the fact that the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth spent four years feeding a significant percentage of their young men into a meat grinder of a war, one the United States did not enter until the final year.

Europe as a whole was war-weary and in the UK in particular there wasn't a town or village who hadn't seen a whole unit decimated.

It was the US that retreated into isolationism when the result of joining the war didn't translate into the result predicted by President Wilson, and in doing so torpedoed the effectiveness of the League Of Nations, which could have been the only organisation able to provide international aid to the crippled Weimar Republic of Germany. Instead a significant minority of German right-wingers and industrialists turned to Hitler.

That's exactly what Thompson is doing with abortion. States decide for themselves.

Ricky @ 45: "Sherman was a butcher. He didn't believe people mattered period."

Please, there are many of boards to argue this North Vs. South bullshit. But since you are on a soapbox, let me get on mine:

When southern politicians and their wealthy slave owner cronies decided to tear the South away from the Union, they were effectively taking a great big shit all over the Founding Fathers and on every American who fought in the War for Independence. All the more appalling considering some of them were the decendents of the Founding Fathers.

I am from south of the Mason/Dixon line... but I can readily acknowledge the stupidity inherent in Confederate idealogy. Today, the miserable failure that was the Confederate government is worshipped principally by racists. Gee, I wonder why.

States don't have rights. People have rights.

"State's rights" was code for pro-segregation. It really is that simple.

Rusty Shackleford @ 69:

States don't have rights. People have rights.

"State's rights" was code for pro-segregation. It really is that simple.

The funny thing is the state-righters use the X Amendment's, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But it never says rights it says POWERS.

States right seem to be a hold-over of the antibellum days of claimed null and void powers by the southern states, ignoring the federal supremacy clause.

However, they ignore Amendment IX, the penumbra amendment that says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This is where Griswold v Connecticut found a general right to privacy and became the precedent of Roe v Wade. Of course one could argue until the cows came home, eat their Happy Meals, and go to their waterbeds whether those unspecified rights were constitutional or not.

Funny thing is you could compare this the states rights "inherent power" not in the constitution to the "inherent powers" presidents claim. And why is there no claim of inherent power from Congress? The closest they have is congressional oversight but that's usually coupled with executive priviledge. I suppose Marbury v Madison was an inherent power claim by the Supreme Court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0ictaMWL24

Rusty Shackleford @ 69:

States don't have rights. People have rights.

"State's rights" was code for pro-segregation. It really is that simple.

You're an ignoramus who obviously has no idea what you are babbling about.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is most valuable, a most sacred right--a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”
--Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848

“To secure these rights [of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government.”
--Declaration of Independence, 1776

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
--Thomas Jefferson, Inaugural Address, 1801

“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation…to a continuance in union…I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’”
--Thomas Jefferson, 1816

“A little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical…a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787

The most important safeguard of the liberties of the people: “the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies.”
--Thomas Jefferson

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.”
--John Quincy Adams, 1839 speech celebrating the Jubilee of the Constitution

“The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right.”
--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

“It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of any individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. . . . The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force. They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will. To. . . authorize suits against States for the debts they owe.. . could not be done without waging war against the contracting State. . . , a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarranted.”
--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers (number 81)

“On examining the first relation, it appears on one hand that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation; but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act therefore establishing the Constitution, will not be a national but a federal act.”
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers (number 39)

“It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases a right to determine how they will be governed. This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. . . . The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue they must retain the character of representative republics.”
--William Rawle (Philadelphia lawyer and one of the most prominent constitutional theorists and abolitionists of the early nineteenth century. His book A View of the Constitution would become the text for the one course on the Constitution taught at West Point.)

“Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.”
--South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun, 1831

“I have no idea that the Union can be maintained or restored by force. Nor do I believe in the value of a Union which can only be maintained or restored by force.”
--United States Senator James Alfred Pearce of Maryland

“Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederation by force would be impracticable, and destructive of republican liberty.”
--Maryland Congressman Jacob M. Kunkel

“Coercion is out of the question [because it would mean] we are then a broken and divided empire.”
--Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley

Northern Press Editorials:

"We sympathize with and justify the South because their rights have been invaded to the extreme." If they wish to secede, "we would wish them God-Speed."
--Albany Atlas and Argus, 11/1/60

"Like it or not, the cotton states will secede," and Southerners will regain their "sense of independence and honor."
--Chicago Daily Times, 11/21/60

Appealed for "concession of the just rights of our Southern brethren."
--Concord Democratic Standard, 11/24/60

Condemned the "meddlesome spirit" of Northerners who Commerce wanted to "seek to regulate and control people in other communities."
--New York Journal of Commerce, 11/26/60

Union "depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." A state coerced to remain in the Union is "a subject province" and can never be "a co-equal member of the American Union."
--Bangor Daily Union, 11/13/60

"Any violation of the constitution by the general government, deliberately persisted in would relieve the state or states injured by such violation from all legal and moral obligations to remain in the union or yield obedience to the federal government. . . let them [the Southern states] go."
--Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 11/13/60

Southern states should be permitted to "work out their salvation or destruction in their own way" rather than to "attempt, through forcible coercion, to save them in spite of themselves."
--Cincinnati Daily Commercial, 11/14/60

"The leading and most influential papers of the union believe and News that any State of the Union has a right to secede."
--Davenport (Iowa) Democrat, 11/17/60

Sovereignty "necessarily includes what we call the `right of secession.' This right must be maintained" lest we establish a "colossal despotism" against which the founding fathers "uttered their solemn warnings."
--Providence Evening Press, 11/17/60

"We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute."
--Cincinnati Daily Press, 11/21/60

“If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then "we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."
--New York Tribune, 12/17/60

Secession is "the very germ of liberty. . . the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state."
--Kenosha (Wisconsin) Democrat, 1/11/61

Opposing secession changes the nature of government "from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves."
--New York Journal of Commerce, 1/12/61

Lincoln's latest speech contained "the arguments of the tyrant--force, compulsion, and power." "Nine out of ten people of the North" are opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union. "The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is. . . that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." Therefore, if the southern states want to secede, "they have a clear right to do so."
--New York Tribune, 2/5/61

"An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil-evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent."
--Detroit Free Press, 2/19/61

"There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
--New York Times, 3/21/61

"Public opinion in the North seems to be gradually settling down in favor of recognition of the New Confederacy by the Federal Government."
--Hartford Daily Courant, 4/12/61

Edited:

Simon White-Thatch Potentloins @ 67:

When southern politicians and their wealthy slave owner cronies decided to tear the South away from the Union, they were effectively taking a great big shit all over the Founding Fathers and on every American who fought in the War for Independence. All the more appalling considering some of them were the decendents of the Founding Fathers.

Of all the moronic statements in this thread, and there are many, this one takes the cake. The exact opposite is true. See above.

Military dictator and white supremacist Lincoln's notion that the states had no right to secede was pulled straight out of his ass without any legal or constitutional basis. Which is why he had to appoint himself military dictator and launch an unconstitutional war (including a war on civilians)--the bloodiest in history up to that point--in order to enforce it. A war in which he literally had to conscript people in the Northern states at gunpoint to fight in (conscription is just a euphemism for slavery). A military dictatorship. Forced conscription. A war on civilians. The jailing of political opponents and members of the press. The execution of dissenters.

Lincoln makes Bush Junior look like a piker, which is why Lincoln is worshipped like a God by neo-conservatives. I'm sure they all get erections fantasizing about the exercising of all that unconstrained, unaccountable executive power and the total negation of the constitution and rule of law.

All this discussion proves is that, fundamentally, there isn’t much difference between neo-conservatives and the authoritarian left. They both believe in forcing others living thousands of miles away, at gunpoint, to live under their system of government, regardless of consent. Sugar coat it all you want, but this is the bottom truth of it all. They are fascists. This is why choosing between the left and right in this country is like choosing between shit and crap.

Your list of out-of-context quotations is also quite humorous.

As a small example of your LYING, Jefferson was NOT calling for violent secession or anything like it. He was defending the Shay's Rebellion participants from hanging. And he did so by saying specifically that in 150 years of colonial democracy there had been no rebellion, so therefore democracy was NOT equivalent to rebellion as Hamilton and others you quote tried to claim.

Let's expand your other Jefferson quotation:

Your screed has this: "“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation…to a continuance in union…I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’” –Thomas Jefferson, 1816"

And here's the quotation without the ellipses:

"The alternatives between which we are to choose [are fairly stated]: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter and hold the former at arm's length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:29

Jefferson is making a point about the requirements of commitment to lawful and peaceful commerce. He is saying that if states were to choose to violate that commitment and engage in rogue piracy, then he would 'prefer' they leave the Union. He is not giving licence to secession -- far from it.

Work though your other quotations, in this rightwing screed copied endlessly by racists and white supremacists, and the real picture will reemerge, once freed from your propaganda.

How pathetic that Southern racists still spread lies in defense of their immoral cause.

Oh, and this, "“Coercion is out of the question [because it would mean] we are then a broken and divided empire.”
–Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley"

Joseph Philo Bradley became a Justice in 1870. Oops.

Paul in LA @ 78:

I don't disagree that WWI opened the door for Hitler. However, the British as a result supported their gov't avoiding its obvious treaty duties, in part because of British fascism, which was a powerful force in the 1930s, and in part because of a faulty geopolitical concept of what Hitler represented.

The fact that ex-royal Edward VI marched in Berlin on his honeymoon with his arm raised in the Hitler salute tells most of the story.

Firstly, what's Edward VI got to do with it? He had no political power in this country whatsoever, much like his successors.

Secondly Mosley had only the support of a few among the upper class and social elite. I won't deny that he may have had some sympathisers lower down the class scale, but they certainly were not an effective political force. You can't have the experience I did of having my own great-grandparents, aunts and uncles telling me what it was like back then, how the Blackshirts were feared and hated amongst the poor and working-class.

If the UK and the Commonwealth had tried to fight Hitler alone during his early adventures, we would have lost. The fact is that we had nothing to fight him with, and a global depression making it extremely difficult to harness industry to a military goal. We needed to stall for as long as we could. Europe was sick of war and economically crippled.