Audio: Rick Perry flirts with secession at tea-party presser

posted at 7:40 pm on April 15, 2009 by Allahpundit

I snarked yesterday that the left would get hysterical and treat his statement on the Tenth Amendment as a veiled call for secession, so I’m obliged to eat my words today. Simply awful, whether as a convenient distraction for the media from the tea parties or as a brush for them to tar the protests as motivated by crackpot neo-confederate sentiments. Even Drudge, who’s obviously sympathetic to the rallies, is leading with the story right now. In the red scare font, no less.

Breitbart has the audio if you’re curious, but here’s the gist of it:

Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters’ questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

“There’s a lot of different scenarios,” Perry said. “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”

He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.

Texas did secede in 1861, but the North’s victory in the Civil War put an end to that.

What a treat to see some on the right pulling the same whiny, anti-democratic crap that the left pulled under Bush. I can only assume this means that I was wrong about Perry’s 2012 aspirations and that he’s not planning to run, as the thought of a secessionist presidential candidate would be rather highly nuanced indeed. Exit question: Chuck Norris for Texas president?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6

Those who endorse secession (from either side) have forever forfeited the moral high ground from which to question their opponents’ patriotism.

packsoldier on April 15, 2009 at 10:28 PM

Anyone advocating a splitting of our great Union is a traitor and should be dealt with accordingly.

e-pirate on April 16, 2009 at 1:21 AM

I have lived in Tx twice. just moved to TN from TX. was trying to decide where to retire when I get out the military… looks like it’s gonna be Texas. Starting to shop for land now.

Texas was an independent nation before it was a state. it was not conqured or bought. I last I checked you can withdrawl from treaties… I am not a traitor. I have served this country for 11 years and have gone on 3 deployments since 9/11. I do not view sucession as a good idea… but, as I learn more about our fouding fathers, I see why people view it as a viable option. My “rights” do not come from government. They come from god. government can only take (or try to take) them from me.

BadBrad on April 16, 2009 at 7:15 AM

At this point Americans have three options, those being leave, stay and fight, or stay and take one in the pooper like a Jetboy on prom night.

Well look at that! Texans want to fight! What a shock! And look there! AllahP is taking a backdoor delivery! Also a shock!

/already gone

TMK on April 16, 2009 at 7:20 AM

radiofreevillage on April 15, 2009 at 8:09 PM
He’s better off staying at home executing mentally retarded people or whatever is the favorite past time of Texans these days.

Ron White:
In Texas we have the death penalty, and WE USE IT! If you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back!

radiofreevillage,
We have an express lane for execution in Texas and would be more than happy to put your smart-ass at the front on that line!!

try again later on April 16, 2009 at 8:17 AM

Unfortunately tethered to slavery… Secession was a legitimate option when Massachusetts threatened it and when SC, AL, etc. acted on it. You need to read the case for secession. Jefferson Davis, et al, believed that they were saving the Constitution. They were originalists.

Of course, you can’t mention this absolute right championed by Jefferson and the Founders without being tagged a racist… but that is just a red herring.

People can secede for the SAKE of the Constitution. Secession can be seen as upholding and the defending the Constitution of the United States from domestic enemies.

mankai on April 16, 2009 at 8:25 AM

Please somebody take him away from office. This is unreal.

skatz51 on April 16, 2009 at 8:32 AM

The Founders were not “traitors,” they argued that the King and the people had a social contract… when a King becomes a tyrant he breaks the contract binding his subjects to him.

I realize that we elected our “King,” but when Jefferson spoke/wrote of a people’s right (duty?) to revolt, he didn’t make that distinction.

The Second Amendment was proposed in part as a rememdy against tyranny UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. We defend the right of the citizenry to be armed as a defense against an oppressive federal government… so we can assume that the Founders could imagine a scenario whereby asserting that right would not be akin to “treason”… rather it would be the greatest act of patriotism.

mankai on April 16, 2009 at 8:32 AM

ThackerAgency on April 15, 2009 at 8:07 PM

You are a fool. The terrorists are winning because of the huge distances required to come and fight them at home, they fight VERY dirty (remember the suicide bombs) and of course massive support from the traitorous media/lefties in general.

Secession failed with Lincoln, and that time was when nearly half the Union went at once and combined forces.

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 8:37 AM

Political agendas determine the findings published.

Until you read the documents yourself, Allahpundit, you remain ignorant.

Recall your blame on Joe Wurzelbacher, apprenticed employee of a certified and registered plumber. Your thread then stated that Joe was breaking the law.

Prick.

maverick muse on April 16, 2009 at 8:44 AM

Secession failed in the civil war. But does that mean it’s unconstitutional? Do states not have the RIGHT to secede? If, say, 66% of the people in a state voted to secede, would they have the right to do so?

If not, then doesn’t that really mean the Federal government IS the ultimate authority in this nation?

hawksruleva on April 16, 2009 at 9:05 AM

The Second Amendment was proposed in part as a rememdy against tyranny UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. We defend the right of the citizenry to be armed as a defense against an oppressive federal government… so we can assume that the Founders could imagine a scenario whereby asserting that right would not be akin to “treason”… rather it would be the greatest act of patriotism.

mankai on April 16, 2009 at 8:32 AM

+10

-what he said.

hawksruleva on April 16, 2009 at 9:06 AM

When/if Judd Gregg goes I’ll have no one, no one at all who’ll listen to me at least some of the time. I write to Paul Hodes, have at least 6 times, and get back a letter that does not even address my issue. It merely spews out some liberal Party line that I already knew. He does not represent me on any level but goes around saying that he represents ALL the people in his district. I don’t even waste my time and effort calling or writing him any more as I know he won’t hear me. Gov. Lynch listens now and then on those rare occasions and getting rarer when we do agree. At least he(so far)espouses the no broad based tax issue. Given the huge deficit our dear, dear Dem gov and Legislature has amassed, it’s only a matter of time. when Gregg’s gone and if he is not replaced with a Rep.–I might as well just give up. My voice WILL NOT BE HEARD! Part of the blame lies with the State GOP–but most of it lies with sheep from the Boston area who come here to escape taxes and then see to it that the taxes go up and the nanny laws multiply. Also those Ivy Leaguers in Hanover and the wealthy outlander enclaves who, for some reason, don’t seem to mind taxes and think of themselves as saviors of the lower classes or something. I used to love this state, and now wish I had a place to go where I feel welcome ,somewhere, anywhere, in New England or Europe west if you prefer. Please consider this my rant of the day though I can’t promise it will be the last.

jeanie on April 16, 2009 at 9:06 AM

A civil war settled that question. So, if the rest of the Union doesn’t want it to happen, how is it going to happen?

AUINSC on April 15, 2009 at 7:58 PM

The rule of law now means that whichever side has the most guns gets to set the rules?

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 9:11 AM

If it’s not in a state constitution (where it is not anywhere), then sure if a bill passed in Congress and was signed into law, it might (might) be considered legal.

Spirit of 1776 on April 15, 2009 at 8:02 PM

There’s nothing in the US constitution that declares that states do not have a right to seceed.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 9:13 AM

I don’t care what the policies of government are, you don’t break up the nation as a solution.

ckoeber on April 15, 2009 at 8:09 PM

I’m sure King George said exactly the same thing.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 9:19 AM

The rule of law now usually means that whichever side has the most guns and power in general gets to set the rules.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 9:11 AM

Sorry to burst your bubble, oh would-be Son of Liberty, but this has kind of been a proverb throughout history – not always true to the letter but usually so.

Right alongside it goes the proverb that threatening violence toward those with a lot more power than you (which is what secession would entail, don’t kid yourself) is often a surefire way to shorten one’s lifespan.

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 9:26 AM

If it’s not in a state constitution (where it is not anywhere), then sure if a bill passed in Congress and was signed into law, it might (might) be considered legal.

Spirit of 1776 on April 15, 2009 at 8:02 PM

So, you’re saying a state, or an individual, only has rights if it’s specifically stated? Funny, I thought the Constitution says the opposite.

For the record. I’m not a secessionist. But to argue that states have no legal basis to do so is to set up arguments that run counter to the underpinnings of our nation.

Perry doesn’t want to secede, and Texans don’t want to secede. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have the RIGHT to choose what country they’re part of. That’s part of what the Alamo was all about, wasn’t it?

hawksruleva on April 16, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Only 9 of 13 states needed to ratify the Constitution for the Constitution to be made binding for all 13 states. Spirit of 1776 on April 15, 2009 at 8:20 PM

They were only ratifying a new constitution, not joining a union. They had already done that.

You don’t need 100% voting to get a new constitution anymore than you need 100% voting for a new law to become effective and binding on everyone.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Right alongside it goes the proverb that threatening violence toward those with a lot more power than you (which is what secession would entail, don’t kid yourself) is often a surefire way to shorten one’s lifespan.

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 9:26 AM

So you’re saying holding a gun to someone’s head is a valid form of governance? Power doesn’t make right. I always found it funny that leftists think it does, in the end. But the proof is in the pudding. Remember the Alamo? Everyone of those people died. But they won in the long run. There are a lot worse things than dying, and there are more important things than mere living.

hawksruleva on April 16, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Texas is looking pretty damn good right about now. Seriously thinking of moving from socialist-ruled, Somali-infested Maine.

ErinF on April 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM

This is just political posturing by Governor Goodhair. The only reason this man has a job is because his former boss got a better one in Washington a few years back, and since then, his only competition for the governor’s mansion have been total losers.

Vic on April 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM

There is a considerable amount of gun-jumping here. All he is doing is reminding the behemoth that is DC of its origins. There is no doubt that they have forgotten a very key point and historical fact of our nation:

That it was the States that created it all (not the converse)…

His invocation of the 10th is not an ultimatum but a reminder. Federalism y’all.

anuts on April 16, 2009 at 9:37 AM

At this point Americans have three options, those being leave, stay and fight, or stay and take one in the pooper like a Jetboy on prom night.

Well look at that! Texans want to fight! What a shock! And look there! AllahP is taking a backdoor delivery! Also a shock!

/already gone

TMK on April 16, 2009 at 7:20 AM

Wow. Grow up sir and seek help. Neither JetBoy or Allah deserved that drivel.

GoodBoy on April 16, 2009 at 9:40 AM

We will give you Alaska.

Leave.

getalife on April 16, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”.

Therefore, Texas (and hence the rest of the Confederacy) never left the Union during the Civil War. Further, a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States.

nazo311 on April 16, 2009 at 9:49 AM

However, with the civil war, slavery became moot and besides, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t allow for existing states in the union to break into smaller states.

pullingmyhairout on April 15, 2009 at 8:33 PM

Can you please point to the clause in the constitution that declares that states cannot split? Need I remind you that several states have split since the current constitution was adopted.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Don’t throw away what can be fixed.

MadisonConservative on April 15, 2009 at 8:40 PM

We don’t have the votes, and never will.
It can’t be fixed.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Georgia Senate threatens dismantling of USA

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/04/16/georgia-senate-threatens-dismantling-of-usa/comment-page-1/#comment-26192

This is what the DHS is talking about with RW extremists.

The lack of patriotism is sickening.

Get out of our country sore losing teabaggers.

Leave.

getalife on April 16, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Get out of our country sore losing teabaggers.

If you can’t make a coherent argument… go back to Facebook.

mankai on April 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention

Excerpt:

The convention ended with a report and resolutions, signed by the delegates present, and adopted on the day before final adjournment. The report said that New England had a “duty” to assert its authority over unconstitutional infringements on its sovereignty — a doctrine that echoed the policy of Jefferson and Madison in 1798 (in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions), and which would later reappear in a different context as “nullification.”

mankai on April 16, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Shoving socialism down the throats of Americans with a 53% majority
notagool on April 15, 2009 at 9:04 PM

Not to mention ACORN adding millions of non-existant voters to the rolls.
Not to mention control of the census apparatus in order to make millions of non-existent citizens appear so that Democratic areas get more electoral votes and more representation in congress.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 10:15 AM

So, the same folks that attacked the left’s patriotism during w’s disaster are threatening treason.

Looks like Janet was right about RW extremists.

getalife on April 16, 2009 at 10:15 AM

hawksruleva on April 16, 2009 at 9:32 AM

I never said might makes right. It doesn’t. All I did was point out that it’s usually how things work.

Strip away all the Yankee-Doodle flagwaving, and the only reason most of us dance to the tune of the powers-that-be is because we’re rightly afraid of the power they can wield. It’s the same for every other nation in the world with an organized government. Human beings are notoriously fickle, and loyalty alone will not a stable nation make. (not for very long at least)

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Every square inch of this country was Indian (natvie american) country prior to it’s being absorbed by first the colonialists, then the US.

The US govt recognized the Indian nations as independant nations, at least until it was convenient to no longer recognize them as independant nations.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Why don’t you go out and remove all your republican brothers from the welfare rolls then come back and pound your little chest.

Dave Rywall on April 15, 2009 at 9:43 PM

We will, once we no longer have to pay for it.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM

You have a plan to preserve freedom in the Republic of Texas, or the Republic of South Carolina, or the Republic of Oregon, or whatever? You have a military?

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 15, 2009 at 9:46 PM

So only countries with big powerful militaries have freedom?

After Obama is through, the US won’t have one either.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Looks like Janet was right about RW extremists.

getalife on April 16, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Ah, isn’t that precious? You are on a first-name basis with the head of DHS.
By the way, has Tim staffed Treasury Department yet?

carbon_footprint on April 16, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Perry’s talk of Texas secession was probably tongue-in-cheek, not really meant seriously, but he made the mistake of “saying aloud what some people think to themselves”.

I’m in Connecticut now, but lived four years in Houston TX, and there’s definitely an “independent” streak in Texas, a “can-do” spirit that wonders what whiny Northerners are complaining about. Of course, I do remember that my three car-pool buddies were eager to let Jersey Yankee (me!) drive when a freak snowstorm hit Houston, and half the gun-totin’ pickups were in ditches alongside I-10. Texans and other Americans both need each other.

It would be better for everyone for Texas to stay in the United States, and Governor Perry probably knows this, but his comments were probably meant to be provocative, and “food for thought” for other states.

It’ll probably never happen, but if Texas and Louisiana both seceded and joined together, “Texiana” would be a net exporter of petroleum and refined products, and could join OPEC, as well as control the port of entry to the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee River basins, or about 1/3 of the area of the United States. What if Texiana decided to sell its oil and gasoline elsewhere than to the Lower 46, or imposed tariffs on ships passing through New Orleans and Baton Rouge?

Food for thought for Barry O from the barrio in Chi-town, while he ponders how much socialism he can shove down the throats of Texans. They probably will shove back.

Steve Z on April 16, 2009 at 10:35 AM

So each soldier, sailor, etc. makes his own constitutional decisions? No one has to take orders from the chain of command, up through the commander-in-chief? Splendid.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 15, 2009 at 9:58 PM

It is the duty of every soldier to determine if his orders are lawful. Always has been.

This is a seperate issue from the chain of command.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Steve Z on April 16, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Great comment Steve. One contention: Perry did not actually mention succession. It was a moment of misleading, by “Allahpundit” in order to fire up the comments, and it worked.

carbon_footprint on April 16, 2009 at 10:42 AM

So only countries with big powerful militaries have freedom?

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Go ask the Israelis how necessary their armed forces are. Big, they can’t do with a postage-stamp country. But strong they can and must.

A nation without a comparatively strong military is little more than a glorified carpet.

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM

If Texas leaves, by taking it’s conservative leaning votes out of the House and Senate (not to mention the electoral college), the slide into socialism for the rest of the US will only accelerate. I predict that if Texas leaves, quite a few other states will start seriously considering their own secessionist movements.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Steve Z on April 16, 2009 at 10:35 AM

You have crafted a perfectly illogical response to an incredibly stupid statement from man of waning relevance.

Yeah Texans need other Americans because “half” of them can’t drive during storms. Additionally, the nation of Texiana might be granted control of major port operations. Uh huh.

The Race Card on April 16, 2009 at 10:50 AM

it has to be that our democratic institutions have failed and there’s no other recourse for restoring them.

Because the electoral corruption of ACORN and the Democrats.
Because of the educational malfeasance of the NEA and liberal professors.

I believe that the failure of our democratic institutions has been brought about.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 10:58 AM

the same whiny, anti-democratic crap

The Constitutional Convention and the resulting document was not a suicide pact. Give an argument, not a slur.

JDPerren on April 16, 2009 at 11:00 AM

He’s better off staying at home executing mentally retarded people…

radiofreevillage on April 15, 2009 at 8:09 PM

Then I suggest you not got to Texas…

right2bright on April 16, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Sorry to burst your bubble, oh would-be Son of Liberty, but this has kind of been a proverb throughout history – not always true to the letter but usually so.

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 9:26 AM

It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that you endorse tyranny.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 11:18 AM

nazo311 on April 16, 2009 at 9:49 AM

If the south never left the union, why were they required to petition to rejoin after being beaten by the north?

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Audio: Rick Perry flirts with secession at tea-party presser

Simply awful, whether as a convenient distraction for the media from the tea parties or as a brush for them to tar the protests as motivated by crackpot neo-confederate sentiments. Even Drudge, who’s obviously sympathetic to the rallies, is leading with the story right now. In the red scare font, no less.

posted at 7:40 pm on April 15, 2009 by Allahpundit

Eh, actually Drudge seems to approve of Perry, the story is headlined with Perry as “Rising Star”… Hardly a diss by Drudge.

Texas is right to contemplate secession, and many other states as well. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it should be commended.

Norwegian on April 16, 2009 at 11:25 AM

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 11:18 AM

For the last time…stating a fact =/= endorsing it. Please try to wrap your head around that.

“Speak softly and carry a big stick.” —Teddy Roosevelt.

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 11:26 AM

I never said might makes right. It doesn’t. All I did was point out that it’s usually how things work.

Strip away all the Yankee-Doodle flagwaving, and the only reason most of us dance to the tune of the powers-that-be is because we’re rightly afraid of the power they can wield. It’s the same for every other nation in the world with an organized government. Human beings are notoriously fickle, and loyalty alone will not a stable nation make. (not for very long at least)

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Loyalty alone will not a stable nation make? So it doesn’t matter if citizens are loyal or not, you can lock them up for disagreeing? Or shoot them? You sound like FDR.

It’s true that government has the implied use of force behind it. But in this country, that’s only because citizens have voluntarily given up a small portion of their freedom so that the government can provide a secure environment for the pursuit of commerce. The people have the right to take back those freedoms if the government does not use them wisely. In fact, that’s exactly how this country was formed.

I know you think America is just like any other country, but it’s not. That’s a big part of the message of the Tea parties. And it’s time Uncle Sam realized that Washington is made up of servants, not masters.

hawksruleva on April 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM

DS, that’s a funny notion coming from you, the guy who consistently opposes every new military hardware program.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM

But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at bankrupts the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.

FIFY

shuzilla on April 16, 2009 at 11:41 AM

We don’t have the votes, and never will.
It can’t be fixed.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Well, then maybe you should just leave the United States entirely and go somewhere where democratic principles aren’t important.

Proud Rino on April 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I would love to see Texas leave … that would take care of at least half the immigration problems with Mexico, although I am sure we won’t want Texans in America taking our good jobs that we don’t want to do … they can then elect G.W. Bush as their first president.

It’s a win win situation for both Texas and the US.

Monkei on April 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Of course it is. I am fine and do not need to take a step back. I appreciate your concern though.

carbon_footprint on April 15, 2009 at 10:27 PM

Ok but maybe you should tell that to some of the other posters on this topic.

Dreadnought on April 16, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Ok but maybe you should tell that to some of the other posters on this topic.

Dreadnought on April 16, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Look back at a lot of my posts in this thread; I have.

carbon_footprint on April 16, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Maybe this is because I’m Canadian, but I just don’t see what the big deal is with Perry’s statement. He’s right: it’s a great union, but if Washington overreaches there is no telling what would happen. Does anyone disagree??

And what’s “anti-democratic” about seceding (if the government becomes tyrannical) anyway? The U.S. seceded from Great Britain for exactly that reason, for crying out loud.

Gaunilon on April 16, 2009 at 11:49 AM

I would love to see Texas leave … that would take care of at least half the immigration problems with Mexico…

That’s a good point. The one thing most important to Texans that the feds should be doing, preserving border integrity, the feds are failing at miserably. Maybe if Texans actually could rely on the feds sealing the border they’d have something to lose from secession. Maybe a free and independent Texas could better control their border with Mexico, unincumbered with federal laws and policies that discourage cracking down on illegals.

shuzilla on April 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM

So opposing one unnecessary series of warplanes makes me hypocritical for stating a provable fact on how governments rule.

Oh yes – and giving the thumbs-down on F-22′s is “consistently opposing every new piece of hardware the military wants to build.” What a hoot. I cheer for every UAV that replaces a manned airplane, among other things. Robo-pilots don’t leave widows and orphans behind.

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Therefore, Texas (and hence the rest of the Confederacy) never left the Union during the Civil War. Further, a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States.

nazo311 on April 16, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Thus leaving us with the express purpose of the second amendment as the only hope for dealing with an unresponsive oppressive government (tyrants)?

Ernest on April 16, 2009 at 11:56 AM

There’s a lot of normal patriotic hard core USA loving people in Texas that since the bailouts and stimulus packages have started flowing have been seriously shifting toward secession. Tying it to the civil war and making it a race issue is just an attempt at avoiding the issue and will only make things worse.

If the power grab and spending continues down the road it is now I will not be surprised if Texas and maybe more states get very serious about secession. You’d likely see the Gulf States with the exception of probably Florida and a good chunk of the Midwest go too. You really think Obama has the will of Lincoln to fight that battle out?

bj1126 on April 16, 2009 at 11:56 AM

It would be better for everyone for Texas to stay in the United States, and Governor Perry probably knows this, but his comments were probably meant to be provocative, and “food for thought” for other states.

It’ll probably never happen, but if Texas and Louisiana both seceded and joined together, “Texiana” would be a net exporter of petroleum and refined products, and could join OPEC, as well as control the port of entry to the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and Tennessee River basins, or about 1/3 of the area of the United States. What if Texiana decided to sell its oil and gasoline elsewhere than to the Lower 46, or imposed tariffs on ships passing through New Orleans and Baton Rouge?

Food for thought for Barry O from the barrio in Chi-town, while he ponders how much socialism he can shove down the throats of Texans. They probably will shove back.

Steve Z on April 16, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Unfortunately, Perry’s comments were a clear violation of Macaca Rule, which states that Republican politicians don’t get to “think out loud” or make “provocative” statements. This rule is vigorously enforced by the media, with absolutely no exceptions or pardons. The penalty for violating the rule is crucifixion. It’s not fair, it’s biased, and you can point to a dozen times when any given Democrat has gotten away with little public eruptions that would have ended a Republican’s career… but that’s the way it is. It does little good to complain about it. I often wish I had the resources to provide Macaca Rule Advisors to every prominent Republican. They’d carry plaster replicas of George Allen’s political tombstone, plus a set of glossy photos of top media personalities embossed with the words “THESE PEOPLE HATE YOU” in large red letters.

I don’t think secession talk is a useful line of debate, aside from questions of historical interest and good-natured spitballing. Even if we grant the technical aspects for the sake of discussion, and assume a couple of fed-up red states secede and form the Republic of Galt without any violent or legal confrontations, it would be a very temporary solution at best. How long would it be before the locusts from dying blue states began emigrating to Galt, bringing their pathologies with them? Anyone who lives in a state like Florida has seen this happen a thousand times: a wave of refugees from New York and Massachusetts show up, complaining about how their home state has become an unlivable hell-hole, then immediately set about voting for politicians who implement the exact same policies that ruined their home state. It wouldn’t be more than a few years at best before Galt had its own surly dependency underclass, a mass of “enlightened liberal voters” who migrated from dying blue states in America, and some eager politicians ready to introduce them to each other.

Even if the blue-state immigrant problem could be solved, I would never feel comfortable with leaving my fellow Americans to the mercy of untrammeled socialism. The situation in Old America would deteriorate very rapidly, if most of the wealth creators decamped to a new country. We all know how Democrats would deal with a collapsing wage base and dying industrial infrastructure: raise taxes like crazy on everyone left behind, using increasingly vicious methods to deal with anyone who tries to escape or thwart their system. When the gigantic, exhausted, starving country surrounding our newly independent Texas is confronted with a crashing economic system, lack of food and energy, and an angry population that refuses to part with a nickel of their “free government benefits,” where do you suppose it would look to get what it needs? It would be highly unlike to reform itself politically, especially if most of the political opposition to Democrat socialism had fled the country. It would look at its destitute population, consider its huge military, and eye the tiny, hugely prosperous free-market nation on its southern border with a ravenous hunger. A few New York Times op-eds reminding everyone how much wars “stimulate the economy,” and our Republic of Galt might discover that achieving independence is easier than keeping it.

Even as a thought exercise, we betray our duty to America by contemplating the idea of leaving it behind. It’s worth fighting for, and we have a duty to do so.

Doctor Zero on April 16, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Proud Rino on April 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM

A great many people would gladly pack their bags and ‘head west’, if there were any west left to conquer. Our planet really has gotten smaller over time. Colonizing another one won’t even be possible for decades, if such a thing can even be done. So for now the ‘flight’ option in “fight or flight” is academic; where does one go to anymore?

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Maybe this is because I’m Canadian, but I just don’t see what the big deal is with Perry’s statement. He’s right: it’s a great union, but if Washington overreaches there is no telling what would happen. Does anyone disagree??

And what’s “anti-democratic” about seceding (if the government becomes tyrannical) anyway? The U.S. seceded from Great Britain for exactly that reason, for crying out loud.

Gaunilon on April 16, 2009 at 11:49 AM

We fought one Civil War already. It left half a million dead and economically devastated the South. I think it’s in really poor taste to root for another one over a budget dispute. Obama has barely had time to change the drapes in the oval office and people are talking about rebellion. It’s especially bad form to raise the specter of the civil war, with all its racial detritus, only a few months into the first black president’s term.

RightOFLeft on April 16, 2009 at 12:12 PM

A great many people would gladly pack their bags and ‘head west’, if there were any west left to conquer. Our planet really has gotten smaller over time. Colonizing another one won’t even be possible for decades, if such a thing can even be done. So for now the ‘flight’ option in “fight or flight” is academic; where does one go to anymore?

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM

I don’t know, I’ve never tried to leave the US, I like it here.

But it can’t be any more difficult than it was when people actually died from scurvy on a regular basis. There are options.

Proud Rino on April 16, 2009 at 12:13 PM

If the south never left the union, why were they required to petition to rejoin after being beaten by the north?

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Petition for representation to congress on the criteria that they adhere to reconstruction.

nazo311 on April 16, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Pout and Sulk

getalife on April 16, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Pull in that lip, do you want a bird to come and perch on it?

KittyLowrey on April 16, 2009 at 12:16 PM

We fought one Civil War already. It left half a million dead and economically devastated the South. I think it’s in really poor taste to root for another one over a budget dispute. Obama has barely had time to change the drapes in the oval office and people are talking about rebellion. It’s especially bad form to raise the specter of the civil war, with all its racial detritus, only a few months into the first black president’s term.

RightOFLeft on April 16, 2009 at 12:12 PM

It’s a perfect time to remind Obama who butters his bread – and who grows the grain and bakes the dough.

The problem here is that the MSM is confusing a triumph of the people – the election of our first black president – as a triumph of Obama’s will and of their own. They are satisfied with an accomplishment that is no accomplishment at all. Too satisfied to do their job and hold Obama to doing his.

shuzilla on April 16, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Even as a thought exercise, we betray our duty to America by contemplating the idea of leaving it behind. It’s worth fighting for, and we have a duty to do so.

Doctor Zero on April 16, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Someone forgot to tell Jefferson:

That 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 new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

–Declaration of Independence

Disturb the Universe on April 16, 2009 at 12:23 PM

We fought one Civil War already. It left half a million dead and economically devastated the South. I think it’s in really poor taste to root for another one over a budget dispute. Obama has barely had time to change the drapes in the oval office and people are talking about rebellion. It’s especially bad form to raise the specter of the civil war, with all its racial detritus, only a few months into the first black president’s term.
RightOFLeft on April 16, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Gotta play that race card./

Disturb the Universe on April 16, 2009 at 12:28 PM

shuzilla on April 16, 2009 at 12:18 PM

To call our current monetary disaster a ‘budget dispute’ is like referring to a FAE as an ‘explosive device’.

While revolution would surely end in disaster the Tea Partiers have some very legitimate complaints.

. Obama has barely had time to change the drapes in the oval office…

And he’s created more disasters in that time than Bush did over his whole eight years.

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM

If the government destroys the constitution, there is no America, since that contract is breached.
If the government destroys our currency to gain power by creating havoc and panic, then what are we to do?
If it turns 25% of the nation – the most productive and economically critical elements in the society – into slaves to feed and cloth the other 75% by confiscating their wealth and property and handing that over to their crony friends (GE comes to mind here), then what the hell is the point?
Maybe Perry just doesn’t want Texans to get stuck with Obama and his buddies’ 20 trillion dollar bar tab.

TexasJew on April 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM

I see I’m not the only one thinking, “I should move to Texas.” The marital unit and I were already thinking along those lines, though, especially as California once again ramps up the tax/spend/nanny machine that is its state government.

Texas might be getting a lot of refugees.

evergreen on April 16, 2009 at 12:32 PM

We fought one Civil War already. It left half a million dead and economically devastated the South. I think it’s in really poor taste to root for another one over a budget dispute. Obama has barely had time to change the drapes in the oval office and people are talking about rebellion. It’s especially bad form to raise the specter of the civil war, with all its racial detritus, only a few months into the first black president’s term.
RightOFLeft on April 16, 2009 at 12:12 PM

You’re too stupid to be breathing. You must have gills.

TexasJew on April 16, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 12:30 PM

shuzilla on April 16, 2009 at 12:18 PM was responding to RightOFLeft on April 16, 2009 at 12:12 PM.

Disturb the Universe on April 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM

You’re too stupid to be breathing. You must have gills.

TexasJew on April 16, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Good burn!

Disturb the Universe on April 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM

ic; where does one go to anymore?

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Texas is approximately 270,000 sq. miles. I think we could let a few Yankees in…as long as they went through the proper immigration channels. :)

FishFearMe on April 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM

We fought one Civil War already. It left half a million dead and economically devastated the South. I think it’s in really poor taste to root for another one over a budget dispute. Obama has barely had time to change the drapes in the oval office and people are talking about rebellion. It’s especially bad form to raise the specter of the civil war, with all its racial detritus, only a few months into the first black president’s term.

RightOFLeft on April 16, 2009 at 12:12 PM

At least 618000 Americans died out of a population of 31.2 million (19% of total population). There were as much as 30% casualties in battles. No one thought the war would last as long as a few months, except for William Tecumseh Sherman. At the beginning of the war both sides were very pumped up and eager to fight. Near the end, it was massive desertion on both sides and the Confederates were shoeless and starving. We do not want a Civil War II.
As I stated up thread, we take back our country, not by force, but through winning the next two election cycles.

We HAVE to take back Congress in 2010 or we or in for disaster.

carbon_footprint on April 16, 2009 at 12:37 PM

The United States Supreme Court ruled in the famous case Texas v White in 1869 that a state did and does not have the right to leave the union. Of course this case was decided after the War of Northern Aggression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

SC.Charlie on April 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM

The United States Supreme Court ruled in the famous case Texas v White in 1869 that a state did and does not have the right to leave the union.

Very true, but what if that union leaves the state?
There are limits to everything.
Must win Congress in 2010.

carbon_footprint on April 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM

So for now the ‘flight’ option in “fight or flight” is academic; where does one go to anymore?

Dark-Star on April 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Follow the Asians to South America, of course.

TMK on April 16, 2009 at 12:52 PM

As I stated up thread, we take back our country, not by force, but through winning the next two election cycles.

carbon_footprint on April 16, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Absolutely. This “South will rise again” crap just makes it that much harder to win elections, though.

RightOFLeft on April 16, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Funny, I didn’t hear these lefties moralizing about all this when VT threatened it under Bush. I guess it’s OK if it’s for their purposes.

jeanie on April 16, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Petition for representation to congress on the criteria that they adhere to reconstruction.

nazo311 on April 16, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Which they wouldn’t need to do if they were still states.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM

We don’t have the votes, and never will.
It can’t be fixed.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Well, then maybe you should just leave the United States entirely and go somewhere where democratic principles aren’t important.

Proud Rino on April 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM

From that you conclude I don’t like democracy?

You are a strange little man.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Check out Legal Insurrection’s post in the Green Room.

Disturb the Universe on April 16, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Absolutely. This “South will rise again” crap just makes it that much harder to win elections, though.

RightOFLeft on April 16, 2009 at 12:52 PM

It does foster isolationism. However, the point is that Perry was not talking of succession or even hinting at it.
IMO, he was making a stand to Obama, not-so-subtlety, and letting him know, basically, Don’t Mess with Texas.

carbon_footprint on April 16, 2009 at 1:09 PM

The United States Supreme Court ruled in the famous case Texas v White in 1869 that a state did and does not have the right to leave the union. Of course this case was decided after the War of Northern Aggression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

SC.Charlie on April 16, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Over the last 150 years, the SC has decided to ignore about 70% of the constitution. What makes this unconstitutional decision that unusual?

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Even as a thought exercise, we betray our duty to America by contemplating the idea of leaving it behind. It’s worth fighting for, and we have a duty to do so.

Doctor Zero on April 16, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Someone forgot to tell Jefferson:

That 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 new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

–Declaration of Independence

Disturb the Universe on April 16, 2009 at 12:23 PM

I don’t think there’s anything inconsistent with saying we have a duty not to exercise that right. We have a lot more altering to do before we start talking about abolishing, and to the extent it is taken seriously, secession talk bleeds away energy from the efforts to reform from within. It’s also coercive instead of persuasive. “Do what we want, or we’ll leave” is no less off-putting than “Do what we want, or you’re a racist.” In some ways it’s worse, because most people see it as a pathetically hollow threat, whereas liberals really will try to tar you as a racist if you disagree with them.

Doctor Zero on April 16, 2009 at 1:19 PM

I think it’s in really poor taste to root for another one over a budget dispute.

This is hardly just a budget dispute:

1. The federal government continues to bail out failed businesses while taking campaign contributions from them.

2. They levy punitive taxes on select groups of people for nothing other political expediency, after creating the very conditions for the supposed need for it to occur.

3. They continue to ignore the looming disaster of Social Security insolvency, which will either rob people of contributions they had no choice in making and/or saddle our children with an unserviceable debt.

4. At a time when more people are out of work and less tax revenues are being collected, they increase the federal budget at an incredible rate, with no practical way to pay for it apart from destroying the currency through inflation or further increasing the tax burden on an already overburdened tax base.

5. They create economic bubbles through a failing fiat currency system and attempts to engineer social change against all market resistance.

6. We have a president who shows incredible weakness by apologizing to foreign nations and negotiating away our national security.

7. Our Congress no longer represents, they scheme, legislate, and regulate in order to satisfy the unions, various lobbies, and other organizations that keep them in power. They have become little tyrants.

TheMightyMonarch on April 16, 2009 at 1:24 PM

As I stated up thread, we take back our country, not by force, but through winning the next two election cycles.

We HAVE to take back Congress in 2010 or we or in for disaster.

Neither of the two major political parties have an interest in returning to Constitutional limits on federal government. The Democrats have been lost for years, the Republicans have been infected by a statist contingent that far outnumbers the true defenders of original intent and Constitutional Law.

Even if the Republicans managed to take back Congress next year (very unlikely, with a veto-proof Congress being nearly impossible), the best I can see them doing is rolling back some of the bailouts and spending. They do not have the political courage to do what’s necessary, by which I mean phasing out massive entitlement programs, returning us to a sound money system, and severely cutting back the size and scope of the federal government.

Even if the Republicans did find religion and try these things, they would be absolutely tarred and feathered by a hostile media as well as the voters who have gotten used to relying on government entitlements and suddenly must make it on their own.

Honestly I don’t see a clean way out of this mess. Either we continue to slide into a weak socialist state (which will eventually collapse under its own weight) or states decide they’ve had enough, and either revolt or refuse to send taxpayer dollars to Washington. Neither will be pretty.

TheMightyMonarch on April 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM

From that you conclude I don’t like democracy?

You are a strange little man.

MarkTheGreat on April 16, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Yes. Because you don’t have the votes, “it can’t be fixed” and you need to secede.

Not “we have to do a better job of convincing people we’re right,” and not “Maybe we should try to find a middle ground here in order to win over moderates.”

The whole point of democracy is having arguments and debates. You don’t want to debate, you want to leave the United States and take Texas with you.

Except, you know, I don’t know if you’ll be all that happy in Texas, because there are quite a few Democrats in Texas, and they may actually end up winning. In fact, everywhere you go, as long as you have democracy, you’re going to have people that disagree with you, and sometimes, the guys you disagree with are going to win.

Unless you’re in a dictatorship. Then you don’t have to worry about that kind of thing. I think that might be something you’d prefer.

Proud Rino on April 16, 2009 at 1:41 PM

If there’s anything worse than an genuine troll, it’s that poster who pretends to be a moderate, then busily and consistently defends liberal points of view and thinks she remains undetected.

jeanie on April 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Proud Rino on April 16, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Democracy is mob rule, which is why our Constitution was designed to make the U.S. a democratic republic. Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority, which is why our Constitution was designed to keep mob rule in check.

Our leaders have been slowly eroding the republican side of our political system for decades. We now vote democratically for Senators, for Presidents, even specific propositions and law for many states.

The result is that our leadership has managed to manipulate the system in such a way that they have effectively bribed the majority of the population through “progressive” tax systems and government handouts. They fixed the House of Representatives at 435 members in order to protect their seats (while at the same time making them easier to be bought off by lobbyists and special interests), and have passed unconstitutional restrictions on free speech in order to further that protection.

We already have a dictatorship. 300 million of us are ruled by a mere 535. Congress long ago stopped representing the people. They represent whatever keeps them in power. What I want is a return to real representative government. I don’t see that happening unless the whole system collapses (which it will at our current pace) or unless enough states revolt to effect real change.

TheMightyMonarch on April 16, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Yes. Because you don’t have the votes, “it can’t be fixed” and you need to secede.

Not “we have to do a better job of convincing people we’re right,” and not “Maybe we should try to find a middle ground here in order to win over moderates.”

The point of federalism is that the states should be shielded from the federal government. That way, NY, PA and CA can’t rule the other states. Since we’ve broken down that wall… it is only true that NATIONALLY we have failed to uphold the Constitution. That does not mean that the people of AL or TX should be subject to the whims of the other states via the federal government.

If 99% of the people of a state object to the US Congress imposing its will in defiance of the 10th Amendment… why should they have to submit because nationally 50.1% of Americans voted for someone who is a tyrant? Do elections guarantee that no tyrant will be elected? Do elections guarantee mean that whatever the federal government does is automatically Constitutional?

Now, I ask you, don’t you think the Founders ASSUMED that any American Congressional or Presidential tyrant WOULD HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO HIS OFFICE? Of course they did. That should end the “well, we elected this tyrant, so I guess we all have to just turn our children over to the local re-education camp ’cause they tell us we have to” nonsense.

mankai on April 16, 2009 at 3:08 PM

For all of you aggitating for Texas and the red states to split off from the United States of America, you should first contemplate who provides the trough from which certain red states suckle. See this report from 2004. It shows that seven of the top ten states that received more money from the Federal Government then they contributed were “Red States”. In direct opposition to most of the sentiments expressed by those here, the top ten states that contributed more to the Federal Gov’t then they received all voted for Obama in 2004. Oh my gawd, could it be that the Red staters that value “self-sufficiency” are actually being propped up by those selfish Blue Staters? Shocker! Here is a link to the backup data for this which was updated to 2005 by the Tax Foundation.

You all remind me of Quebecquois and certain people in the Scottish Nationist Party who push for independence from their respective nation-states. The sad reality for the frenchies and scots is that they need and are dependent on their hated rivals. Their “oppressors” actually suport the oppressed and in gratitude have their faces spit in by those they support.

By the way, a great book to read for this kind of possible seccession is by Col. Thom Kratman called State of Disobediance. I’m sure that everyone on this board will like Col. Kratman’s politics. I prefer his sometimes co-author John Ringo, but I think this is just the book to game out anyone’s seccesionist fantasies.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on April 16, 2009 at 3:09 PM

We will give you Alaska.

Leave.

getalife on April 16, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Hmmm… At this point, if it were Congress and Obama saying this instead of getalife, I suspect there would be a new gold rush to Alaska!

Christian Conservative on April 16, 2009 at 3:12 PM

That’s a good point. The one thing most important to Texans that the feds should be doing, preserving border integrity, the feds are failing at miserably. Maybe if Texans actually could rely on the feds sealing the border they’d have something to lose from secession. Maybe a free and independent Texas could better control their border with Mexico, unincumbered with federal laws and policies that discourage cracking down on illegals.

Texas will take Mexico over and take the drug lords out – Texas style. You know Obama won’t do shit. Obama would rather open the border and not fight.

izoneguy on April 16, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6