Talk of secession is absolute lunacyFeaturedPolitics

In September of 2011, the White House announced the creation of a “White House Petitions” website. The site would allow regular people to write petitions to the government, exercising their first amendment right to petition their government, and if the numbers signed reached a certain threshold – now 25,000 signatures in 30 days – the petition would be forwarded to the White House policy shop responsible for review and possible action.  Sounds great right?  Grassroots politics at work.

The #1 petition on the White House website right now?  A petition from citizens of the State of Texas to secede from the union. It has a whopping 95,292 signatures.

Six other petitions have hit the threshold: Louisiana’s petition to secede has garnered 34,159 signatures.  Florida has 29,000, Georgia has 28,000, Alabama 27,000, Tennessee 26,000, North Carolina 25,000.  South Carolina, birthplace of secession, only has 22,000, Arkansas 20,000 and a handful of other states – including a number that didn’t try secession last time, like Indiana and Colorado – are in the 15k-18k range.

These petitions have garnered a lot of news coverage (just do a Google news search on “secession”), and if you’re Facebook or Twitter, the chances are someone you know has posted it.

This is unbelievable to me, if only because we are a mere 150 years away from the last time secession was openly talked about, and it’s not as if the results there were inconclusive.  History has taught us that it’s simply a bad idea. There are few words in the American political dictionary that are as loaded as the word “secession.” And few that have been the cause of more heartbreak and misery.  This isn’t something we should even be discussing as a joke.

The talk needs to stop. Secession is lunacy. No election is so important, no president is so bad or dangerous that their election warrants the destruction of the country. Not Lincoln, not Obama. And when Republicans start talking this way after losing an election, it looks not simply stupid, it looks insane.

My good friend Scott Manning, a military historian who runs a well known blog, wrote recently of “4 reasons why secession is nonsense.”  Scott had 4 reasons. Personally, I’ve got 1,147,954 reasons. And every single one represents a life torn about because of that word.

Whether it’s 1861 or 2012, there are simply no reasons so compelling as to justify any state seceding simply because of one election.  It was wrong when states seceded after Lincoln’s election, and it’s even more wrong today.  Lincoln himself didn’t get a single vote for President from any state that seceded – he wasn’t even on the ballot.  So when voters in the South chose to leave the union, they could at least do so in clear conscience that no one had voted for President Lincoln and he did not have their consent to govern. And while President Obama didn’t do well in the old south, he held Virginia – heartland of the Confederacy – and Florida.  Even in states he lost, millions of our fellow citizens voted for him.  Like him or not, he won the election, and he did so fair and square.

It’s frustrating to me that there are some people out there who would even consider putting their signature on a petition like this.  Over half a million Americans died the last time secession was spoken of openly.  And as we commemorate the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of that war, we’re back to where we started, with tens of thousands of misguided Americans again openly advocating for secession. Even if it’s a “peaceful secession” – something that is as rare in world history as peace itself – it is still a desire on the part of some to destroy the United States.  And why?  Because their guy lost.  It’s nuts.

There is nothing so wrong with this country that we need to even consider starting over.  The folks who signed this petition really need to stop and consider what they’re really asking for.  The casualties of the last Civil War deserve at least that much respect.

  • Mike R.

    I agree that secession talk is complete lunacy, but it’s not realistic to compare it to 1860. In the digital age there’s no way that the POTUS would invade states and kill 3/4 of a million people. The two conversations are linked but not the same. (A) Secession IS lunacy but (B) just because one side had more guns and men in 1860 does not mean the issue is settled. That’s like saying that if your wife tries to divorce you can use physical violence to force her to stay — and then saying that that fact somehow means that you were right all along.
    And if you think Obama would burn half of the country to the ground to “preserve the Union” you’re probably wrong.

    • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

      Mike, I doubt sincerely that any president would be unwilling to use force to put down an armed rebellion against governmental authority.

      • Mike R.

        It’s clear that you do not understand US history. Lincoln made the call to raise troops to suppress the rebellion before there was any indication of armed resistance vs. the US. It was this call for troops that caused previously loyal union states like VA to seceed. There was no armed rebellion. Nice try. For Sumter was a preemptive move taken AFTER Lincoln made it clear that he was a war-monger.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jared.emry.9 Jared Emry

          Sumpter was to try to get remaining federal troops stationed illegally in the new country to give up and leave. No one was injured by the firing on fort sumpter on purpose, it wasn’t meant to.

        • http://twitter.com/BrianSchoeneman Brian W. Schoeneman

          Mike, your history is lacking, not mine. South Carolina seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated, in December of 1860. He didn’t become president until March. The border states like Virginia wait until after the call for troops, but the earliest states didn’t wait.

          • http://www.facebook.com/josephwknowles Joseph Knowles

            In other words, southern states seceded and then LATER there was a violent reprisal. What precisely was the “armed rebellion” that was being put down given that no shots had been fired prior to Sumter?

      • Mike

        There was no armed rebellion until Lincoln called for troops. That’s what pushed VA into the CSA. Also, what gov’t authority are you talking about? The federal gov’t is a creation of the states. When they choose to leave, the federal government no longer has any authority.

    • Roger R. Schweikert

      Sadly,
      Mike, as two friends have recently informed me the United States may already be criminally involved in an international “covert and sinister plan to kill off as many as 3 BILLION people by food malnutrition” without ever even invading certain targeted foreign nations or God forbid, any of our 50 states. Purportedly, the U.S. Air Force currently commands an installation called HAARP which may already be used as a weapon of mass destruction to manipulate, “control, alter or intensify certain weather conditions in targeted nations”.
      Bradford Archer’s article of November 13th is disturbing because if foreign nations can be targeted why not any one of our individual states or worse certain states may become the collateral damage of weather conditions created elsewhere that develop another life of their own, flow into neighboring friendly nations or worse backfiring altogether and alter or intensify certain conditions in our own hemisphere? Should the American people be demanding a Congressional inquiry into this and our federal government’s possible role in causing the recent Hurricane Sandy/noreaster storm?
      One even more haunting prospect of this federal initative however is that it’s author appears to be none other than our former Secretary of State “Henry Kissinger, who alledgedly “in 1974 conceived the idea” leading to it becoming a classified study in December of that year by the United Nations Security Council “which FALSLY CLAIMED that worldwide population growth poses a great threat to U.S. national security interests.”

  • Craig S.

    Actually, history has taught us that whoever can exert the most force will either quash or allow secession to succeed.

    If we truly are free, then we have the freedom to decide how and who governs us. That includes all the way up to the federal government. Secession and nullification are both constitutional rights of the states…embodied in the 10th Amendment. The states, when ratifying the Constitution, expected that they could withdraw from the Union if and when the Union became detrimental to their freedoms and liberties.

    The states created the federal government. They can certainly dissolve it or withdraw from it if they so choose. Your argument might be valid if a federal government created the states…but it didn’t — the states created the federal government.

    • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

      Craig, the Supreme Court has held that secession and nullification are both barred by the Constitution. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) was the last major case dealing with nullification, and Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) ended it for secession. There is nothing constitutional about either doctrine.

      • http://www.facebook.com/josephwknowles Joseph Knowles

        You mean the federal government decided that the states can’t dissolve their compact with the federal government? Shocker. Secession is a natural right and for proof of the fact look no further than our own Declaration of Independence.

        There’s a reasonable argument to be made that secession is not the right policy right now (and perhaps you would do better to focus on that aspect exclusively), but there’s no reasonable argument that secession is any sense “unconstitutional” or “illegal” altogether. That the United States was kept together by violence once, doesn’t mean that the people who did the best at the killing were right or moral.

        • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

          No, the states agreed that when they joined the federal system, they would be foregoing some of the rights they would otherwise have as sovereign states – like everything listed in Article I Section 10. One of the rights they chose to give up with this right of secession. There is no mechanism in the Constitution to allow for states to leave. Secession is not constitutional.

          • Craig S.

            Actually there is…ever hear of the 10th Amendment? “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.”

            Can you tell me where in the Constitution itself it prohibits the states from seceding?

          • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

            Secession is not a power. Go read Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 800 (1869). Chief Justice Chase can explain the legalities to you far better than this lowly lawyer can.

          • http://www.facebook.com/chuckgates Charles E. Gates Jr.

            No, but I can tell you where the Constitution itself ALLOWS the state to secede… Article V, which outlines the method for amending the Constitution.

            Craig says the 10th Amendment limits the federal authority and empowers the States. Brian says that the States yielded their right to secede unilaterally when the voted to support the Constitution. You are both correct.

            Craig says the 10th Amendment is the mechanism that allows the states to secede. Brian says that it there is no mechanism in the Constitution to allow states to leave. You are both wrong.

            The only way to legally secede is to get enough of the states together to amend the Constitution itself. Amend it to dissolve the Union of the 50 states. Amend it to change the basis on which the Supreme Court has ruled. (BTW, the argument that it is no surprise that the feds ruled to simply protect the feds is ridiculously juvenile.)

            Technically, there is a mechanism to legally secede. Practically, it is impossible.

          • http://www.facebook.com/josephwknowles Joseph Knowles

            There was no right to secede in any of the colonial charters, but that didn’t stop Patrick Henry and company. Go back and read the Virginia Resolutions and the Kentucky Resolutions. If the states thought that they were joining a compact that they could never leave, there never would have been a Constitution in the first place. The right to secede is not a right that can be given up or delegated; it’s inalienable.

          • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

            Joseph, history disagrees with you. If the right to secede was inalienable, then south would be a separate country. You can’t pretend the Civil War didn’t happen. Secession is simply not legal in the United States, period.

          • http://www.facebook.com/josephwknowles Joseph Knowles

            Your argument boils down to the idea that might makes right. At least we all know where you stand now.

          • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

            Might doesn’t make right, but might does make the law. What would the law be without the threat of force to compel obedience behind it? It would be nothing.

          • http://bearingdrift.com/ J.R. Hoeft

            The bottom-line is that we are not to the point where tyranny is running rampant here in America. As I posted on the Bearing Drift Facebook page (like us!), We’re just not to the point of secession.

            We aren’t to the point where conservatives are no longer heard, where we can’t win an election, where armed tyranny is the daily norm. Secession is certainly a last resort option – on that I agree. But we’re a long way from that. And I’m not saying we’re not moving in that direction either….but we still have a long way to go. We lost an election. Let’s think about why. Dust ourselves off. And get moving again. We still have political power. We still hold the House of Representatives. We still have 30 governors. In VA, we are the majority in the House of Delegates. So…let’s get going.

          • Roger R. Schweikert

            Patrick Henry also lead the opposition against ratifying the U.S. Constitution following the Revolution which passed by a majority of only ten votes. He also expressed with great passion his great fear that what the Constitutional Convention created was an even more tyrannical central government than the one the colonists had just overthrown.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jared.emry.9 Jared Emry

        Come on, that would be like my employ deciding that paying me was barred and is against our contract.

      • Craig S.

        It comes as no shock that the federal government’s Supreme Court, put together by the people who quashed secession…would rule against secession. Come on…don’t insult my intelligence. Like Joseph said, the argument can be made against secession as not being the right policy — and I’d agree with him. However, secession is not merely the only option. The states can simply dissolve the Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary if it is the pleasure of the states.
        The Constitution of the United States was a compact between the states. Not between the states and a federal government. If X and Y form a compact with Z as the trustee and Z infringes on X’s rights — who then is, logically, supposed to determine if X has been wronged? Certainly not an agent of Z (the Supreme Court).
        As for nullification — are you really trying to tell me that the states are bound by unconstitutional federal laws? Even Thomas Jefferson and James Madison agreed that if federal laws are unconstitutional states have the right to nullify (Madison used the term “interpose”) the law…and that the laws were of no effect and void.

        • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

          No, they can’t. The Constitution is more than a treaty between the states. Jefferson and Madison were wrong. The system does not provide for a mechanism whereby the states can trump federal law, even if they view it as unconstitutional. They have the same recourse as anyone else through the Congress or the Courts to overturn unconstitutional laws, but they do not have the power to decide what is and isn’t constitutional. The Supreme Clause binds the states in that regard, and that’s been a consistent theme both pre- and post-Civil War.

          • Roger R. Schweikert

            So when Congress creates a Federal Reserve to print money that devalues the dollar and President Nixon takes us off the gold standard in apparent violation of Congress’es soul power “to coin money and regulate the value thereof”, what recourse do the people have to control deflation or inflation or force Congress to live on a budget without continually raising the debt ceiling?

          • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

            Elections.

        • Roger R. Schweikert

          Brian, do the states possess any power to nullify (unconstitutional)Executive orders or judicial decisions?

          • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

            No.

  • Caleb M.

    Glad the men of 1776 didn’t follow the same line of thinking as this writer. From what I’ve read, it is estimated that the American colonists were split in roughly thirds: 1/3 for independence, 1/3 loyalists, and 1/3 ambivalent. That division of opinion and loyalty is something we Americans overcame to become an independent nation that “seceded” from Great Britain back in the day.

    • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

      Caleb, the two situations are incomparable. The men of 1776 have legitimate grievances that went ignored for years and had no meaningful representation in their government. That’s not the case today, and it’s an ignorant conflating of history to even put the two situations in the same context.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jared.emry.9 Jared Emry

        We have a long list of legitimate grievances that have lasted more than a decade, the founders would have revolted by now.

        • http://twitter.com/BrianSchoeneman Brian W. Schoeneman

          Not likely.

  • http://bearingdrift.com/ J.R. Hoeft

    First, the president and many federal officers take the same oath: to protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I am relatively certain that any president would nip secession in the bud.

    Second, I applaud Erick Erickson at ‘Red State” for this:

    Too many people have spent the past four years obsessed with birth certificates. Now they are obsessed with voter fraud conspiracies, talk of secession, and supposed election changing news stories if only we had known.

    So let’s add dabblers in this latest nuttiness to birthers as a category of people we do not welcome at RedState. Our aim is to beat the Democrats, not beat a retreat to a Confederacy that Generals Grant and Sherman rent asunder well over a hundred years ago.

    That is our aim at Bearing Drift as well, only at the Virginia level. I am interested in discussing why Democratic policies are wrong for Virginia. I am interested in talking about what things conservatives and Republicans can do better to improve our commonwealth and, hence, reach a broader electorate.

    The president won this election. There’s many reasons why, not the least being that conservatives never were enamored with Romney as the standard-bearer, but that’s a Republican problem, not a Republic problem.

    Ours is still the greatest country in the world. God bless it. Now let’s get after it in 2013.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jared.emry.9 Jared Emry

      But Obama is the one not upholding the constitution. He is the domestic enemy and we want to nip him in the but. I hated both Romney and Obama and this is not a Republican problem, I would rather be dead than be a republican.

      • http://bearingdrift.com/ J.R. Hoeft

        That’s too bad, because the republican system of government has been pretty good for more than 200 years. Of course, if you meant Republican, then, that’s too bad that you would wish death over being part of a political party. Pretty extreme, my friend.

        To my larger point, we actually agree. Republicans had ample opportunity to nominate a better candidate than Romney. The party really was never enamored with him. This is why we cycled through Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum. Had Romney been “the guy” he would have easily won the Ames Straw Poll in 2011 and cruised to victory. The “Republican” problem is that our so-called strong candidates didn’t man-up and chose to sit this one out.

        If Obama is not upholding the Constitution, then my hope is that Congress will appropriately exercise its Constitutional oversight.

    • MD Russ

      Some quick math tells me that less than 500,000 people have signed these silly petitions. That is about the same number of votes that Jill Stein got Nov 6 as the Green Party candidate (platform: government guaranteed full employment and “peoples’ banks” that charge no interest) and less than half the votes that Gary Johnson got as the Libertarian candidate (platform: legalize prostitution and recreational drugs).

      That kind of puts this secession nonsense in perspective, doesn’t it? It is a fantasy of the lunatic fringe. There is a huge difference between having a Big Tent party and harboring idiots in your midst. As long as the Republican Party continues to do the latter, they will continue to lose support among the mainstream American voters.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jkessler Jeffrey M. Kessler

    “The casualties of the last Civil War deserve at least that much respect.”

    Poppycock. I have multiple family members who number among the casualties of the last Civil War — they gave their lives because they thought secession was worth their lives.
    Just maybe the casualties of the last Civil War deserve at least enough respect as to avoid calling them lunatics.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jared.emry.9 Jared Emry

      And then he calls them misguided and says there cause was wrong… He doesn’t even know the motivation behind the war! 80% of the south that fought didn’t own slaves and most political philosophers, including Alexis de Toquoville, states that the north was more racist. It wasn’t entirely motivated by the election either. Secession was about southern freedom, the war wasn’t about slavery. Read the primary documents from the era, the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in areas that Lincoln didn’t control and had a clause in it that sates that any state that returns gets to keep their slaves. Why would it be about slavery considering that. The writer of this article should read their history before they right on a subject they don’t know about.

      • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

        Jared, you must have read a different article than the one I wrote because I didn’t talk about the causes of the war at all.

    • http://twitter.com/BrianSchoeneman Brian W. Schoeneman

      I didn’t call them lunatics. I called the idea of secession in 2012 lunacy. There’s an important difference. And since my family was fighting on both sides, you can rest assured I wasn’t calling my own ancestors lunatics, either.

  • Nathan Miller

    It is exactly this type of talk that has made our party a joke.

    • http://bearingdrift.com/ J.R. Hoeft

      Yep.

  • http://www.facebook.com/gizmet Sally O Bain

    Good commentary, and much was said that needed to be. I especially loved:

    “The talk needs to stop. Secession is lunacy. No election is so important, no president is so bad or dangerous that their election warrants the destruction of the country. Not Lincoln, not Obama. And when Republicans start talking this way after losing an election, it looks not simply stupid, it looks insane.”

    My fear is that the talk of secession will cloud any positive change moving forward that the party is going to try and make. This will only feed the fire. I don’t think this is a fair representation of our party. Close to a million signatures, collectively, and 49 million voted for Romney. So not exactly massive numbers of republicans voting for this. Not to mention, this is shoving Benghazi even further and further away from the limelight when it needs to be front and center.

  • http://www.facebook.com/thom.ayres.5 Thom Ayres

    Oh yes… Stay the course… Stay in line now… Don’t run away… Keep playing the game. We don’t want to lose what we have left of our voting base, says the GOP…

    You see… The GOP apologists are trying to get you to believe that the whole secession thing is about 1 (ONE) election. Not at all… this has been a long time coming and the establishment GOP and Progressives equally contributed to creating this situation.

    Strange…

    If people lie to you, treat you badly, take your stuff and threaten your family; you wouldn’t hesitate to disassociate yourself from them.

    If a business sold you a substandard product or service, you’d never buy from them again.

    If you are in an abusive relationship and your partner repeatedly threatens, manipulates and lies to you, steals from you, cheats on you, and exposes your children to harmful situations; you can get a divorce.

    Yet, as a community, if we choose to extricate ourselves from an abusive group/government that has a proven historical record of routinely manipulating, lying, threatening, cheating, mismanaging, and systematically stripping the citizens of their freedoms and rights.. well now… that’s just lunacy.

    We should just go ahead and hoist the Union Jack and sing God Save the Queen… because by Mr. Schoeneman’s logic we should have never left the UK.

    The option to leave any intolerable situation is a basic human right that may be exercised at any time either individually or as a community.

    • http://bearingdrift.com/ J.R. Hoeft

      Thom, I think there are plenty of us who’d like to see people like you go away.

      • http://www.facebook.com/thom.ayres.5 Thom Ayres

        I’m absolutely certain there are plenty who’d like to see people like you go away as well.

        • http://bearingdrift.com/ J.R. Hoeft

          Unfortunately for them, and possibly you, I’m not going anywhere. You, however, are welcome to your little secession that will go nowhere but only turn more and more people off to conservatism. I choose to stand up for what I believe and the country I believe in.

    • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

      Thom, your point would be valid if none of us had votes, if we had no way of participating the process of choosing our leaders, or if Republicans hadn’t had control of the White House or Congress in decades. None of that is true. If you don’t like the current government, work to change it. Do that through the legitimate processes that exist. We aren’t at that point and haven’t been since the 1770s.

      Our forefathers didn’t secede from Great Britain. They revolted. They set up a new government, completely different from the old – not a mere replica with a few minor changes. There are few comparisons between what we did in the 1770s, what the south tried in the 1860s and what a handful of people of questionable sanity have proposed after the election last week.

  • Christopher Stearns

    Secession is an important concept and I think it’s foolish of us to write it off completely. However, our society has not (in my opinion) reached a level of dystopian seriousness that really merits on of our states to formally secede.

    It doesn’t paint a pretty picture for public relations and it certainly doesn’t ring well with outreach to demographics that have chided us in modern electoral politics.

    I like focusing on operating in the party and pressuring our legislature to write good policy and repeal bad policy. This has worked for me in my years of involvement and I’m sure it’ll only be magnified if more folks come around to that mode of political activism.

  • Christopher Stearns

    Secession is an important concept and I think it’s foolish of us to write it off completely. However, our society has not (in my opinion) reached a level of dystopian seriousness that legitimately merits one of our states to formally secede.

    It doesn’t paint a pretty picture for public relations and it certainly doesn’t ring well with outreach to demographics that have chided us in modern electoral politics.

    I like focusing on operating in the party and pressuring our legislature to write good policy and repeal bad policy. This has worked for me in my years of involvement and I’m sure it’ll only be magnified if more folks come around to that mode of political activism.

    *Edited

    • http://bearingdrift.com/ J.R. Hoeft

      Couldn’t agree more.

    • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

      Bingo.

  • Chris Green

    When the Federal Govt is bankrupt, and passing it’s unfunded mandates onto the states sending them to ultimate bankruptcy as well?

  • http://www.facebook.com/tony.k.alexander Tony K Alexander

    one thing to remember we have 50 States not states, and the founding Father’s did set up means for the States to deals with the Fed Govt’. Now the States just have to get the nuts to tell the Fed to stuff it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dj-McGuire/1040496090 D.j. McGuire

    Left out of this conversation is the fact that state and local governments have been shown to be just as power-mad and revenue-hungry as Washington ever was (Kelo was a local government eminent domain case; and nearly every ex-Confederate state has seen Republican governors or legislative leaders pushing higher taxes and more spending over the last dozen years). Meanwhile, Houston TX (!) is blowing taxpayer money for…a soccer stadium.
    Big government begins at home, folks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

    Here’s a question to the folks here who think secession is a good idea. Have any of you ever said the pledge of allegiance? If so, were you lying?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=598791119 Jerel C. Wilmore

    Well said Mr. Schoeneman.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=598791119 Jerel C. Wilmore

    Also, quick historical note: the South fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, three days before President Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion. In addition, there had already been two earlier instances where Southern forces had fired on merchant vessels flying the U.S. flag. It is a matter of historical record: the South fired first and initiated hostilities.

  • trevorbenson

    “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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
    - The Declaration of Independence

    • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

      Exactly. As TJ pointed out “Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…” like losing an election.

    • MD Russ

      Equating the election of a left-leaning president, despite the Conservative majority in the House, to the tyranny of King George III and the abusive taxation of the British Parliament is like equating a mugging with the Holocaust. It lacks any sense of reality or proportionality.

  • Loudoun GOPer

    One commenter pointed out that there are something like 500,000 total signatures on these petitions, which shows just how fringe this idea is. The problem is that it is a sideshow, much like the whole “birther” issue was, that amounts to nothing more than a distraction.
    Now to be clear, I am not trying to discredit the opinions and reasons why people feel secession is a good idea, just like I agree that there were plenty of questions about Obama’s birth certificate. But the bottom line is that there is nothing anyone is going to do about it. Nobody was ever going to remove Obama from office, even if you produced video tape of his birth in a village in Kenya, and nobody is ever going to allow a state to secede.
    We are allowing ourselves to get side tracked by these issues and the liberal media then blows the whole issue out of proportion to make all Republicans look like wilde-eyed, rabid, conspiracy theorists. Obama and the Democrats LOVE all this talk about secession because it allows them to point the spotlight on us and say, “look at all those crazy people. Do you really want them running the government?”
    Let’s try to stay focused, people. Let’s try to solve the problems we can solve instead of tilting at windmills.

    • MD Russ

      Loudoun,

      You are dealing with fanatics here, mostly the Ron Paulistinians who cannot be reasoned with. You are absolutely right–like the Birthers, the Democrats love to portray them as the core of the Republican Party and thereby discredit the entire Conservative philosophy by highlighting a few whackos. The only solution is for Republicans to totally disavow them.

  • John

    I think these petitions for secession are more symbolic than a serious effort to secede. People in this country are rising up against the total mismanagement of the federal government. Spending and a lack of budget have made citizens angry and this is a way to show that

    • http://bearingdrift.com/ J.R. Hoeft

      Good observation. I think you’re right.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Worsham-Abbott/100000297917498 Worsham Abbott

    Ah yes SCHOENMAN another transplanted Yankee. You sir are a moron. Any country in which 50 % of the people could vote to return Obama to office after 4 disastrous years is doomed. It cannot be saved because the dunderheads are now in the majority licking their chops over free phones and Obama bucks. The only hope for conservatives is to separate from the alien government in Washington and hunker down in a Southern fortress where we and our property can be safe. The numbers will only be worse 8-12 years down the road. Furthermore, get this and get it good —90% of African-Americans will never vote Republican. Never ever, ever ,ever and conservatives should actively treat them as adversaries and enemies because that is what they are. I realise that this post will probably be blocked as it is not politically correct to point out the truth, but it is the truth nevertheless. Bill Bolling is a real Virginian and understands this while Cucinnelli of NOVA does not . I have voted Republican all my life but I promise I will not vote for Cuccinnelli should he be the Republican nominee next year as I despise NOVA, Satan and all of their joint works. I was raised to be a Virginian first and an American second.

    • http://bearingdrift.com/ J.R. Hoeft

      No way I would ever block this post, Worsham. I want the world to see it. I want everyone to see what you are.

      • MD Russ

        “Hard words, skipper, but they had to be said.” -Doonesbury

    • http://www.facebook.com/BrianSFairfax Brian W. Schoeneman

      Transplanted Yankee? I was born in Maryland. That’s south of the Mason Dixon, the last time I checked, and my family is mostly from southwest Virginia – at least the part I still talk to.

  • louexis

    I would venture to say that almost all of these secessionist addressed each other as American Patriot when the Tea Party had some power. Now, since they have recognized for what they are. They want to secede.