SITE NOTICE | MORE..WordPress Widget v1.6! New, CSS-friendly version of the Sermon Browser is now available with further customization. Please note that updating from the previous version will reset all of the saved widget settings. .. click for more info!
Ron Paul: ‘Secession is a deeply American principle’
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Monday that secession was a “deeply American principle,” amid a growing number of people petitioning the White House to let their states secede from the U.S.
“Secession is a deeply American principle. This country was born through secession. Some felt it was treasonous to secede from England, but those ‘traitors’ became our country’s greatest patriots,” the former presidential candidate wrote in a post on his House website. “There is nothing treasonous or unpatriotic about wanting a federal government that is more responsive to the people it represents.”
He continued: “If the possibility of secession is completely off the table there is nothing to stop the federal government from continuing to encroach on our liberties and no recourse for those who are sick and tired of it.”...
Jim Lincoln wrote: Mike amen! Putting down succession --forcefully-- has always been an American tradition, George Washington (Whiskey Rebellion) Andrew Jackson threat to smack down South Carolina, and Abraham Lincoln putting the rebellious states back in their place, pity they didn't learn from the first two examples. ---
The question is, who today is in rebellion against the United States? The States, or the federal government?
Putting down succession --forcefully-- has always been an American tradition, George Washington (Whiskey Rebellion) Andrew Jackson threat to smack down South Carolina, and Abraham Lincoln putting the rebellious states back in their place, pity they didn't learn from the first two examples.
Secession, American principle or not, is going to be pretty hard to pull off. Most, if not all, of the governors of the supposed secession states are not for secession. The communities are mixed and very few voters would truly want out of the Union even if it were offered free and clear. How many states, red or blue, turn down federal funds now? My guess is not very many. In fact, most state legislatures are jumping through many hoops to hopefully stay in line for the next federal handout.
If you really feel strongly about seceding, it is more realistic that you find a way to leave the country as an individual or a family, as I have done. Not only can you move, live, and work in a country that is already established, but when the smoke is clear you can return to the United States. I have been fortunate in the fact that I have missed the first Obama term and I'm praying to remain abroad throughout the next.
I do realize that signing a petition for secession is more of a symbolic gesture, and if I didn't have to sign up for certain websites, I would probably add my name to the list, but there is no way that it will really happen. It's far easier to make changes for yourself and your family than to try and change an entire state.
Rufus wrote: You will not get an equivalent censure for they are not equivalent sins. You are advocating for a cure that was worse than the sickness. Man-stealing is wrong, the killing of 600,000+ people is worse.
On the contrary, manstealing is a capital offense in Scripture (Ex. 21:16; 1 Tim 1:10), same as murder. Therefore, anyone involved in, or an accessory to, African chattel slavery morally *deserves* to die. And since the South struck the 1st blow, starting a War resulting in said deaths, responsibility for its consequences is theirs.
Rufus wrote: You will not get an equivalent censure for they are not equivalent sins. You are advocating for a cure that was worse than the sickness. Man-stealing is wrong, the killing of 600,000+ people is worse.
Neil wrote: Very pious-sounding, but it begs a question: what rule of war forbids expropriation or destruction of property of value to the enemy? Note that righteous Abraham made off with a pile of loot from those who kidnapped Lot (Gen. 14:16), & that wasn't even for Sherman's reason. What strikes me again is, your special pleading for the rights & property of Southern white men. Sherman is a war criminal, you say, but the thousands of slaveowners who stole the liberties & broke up the families of millions of Africans over several generations earns no equivalent censure from you, whether it's directly relevant or not.
You will not get an equivalent censure for they are not equivalent sins. You are advocating for a cure that was worse than the sickness. Man-stealing is wrong, the killing of 600,000+ people is worse.
jpw wrote: --- ---Emmanuel King Love, Baptist Pastor and survivor of American slavery, 1981 speech, "Emancipation Oration" in this power shift we see today, if the people are able to obtain land and feed themselves they will make it, if the death taxes on farmers, procurement of international land under agenda 21, the destruction of natural seed through the dominance of gm seed in the fields, weakening of people with economics, its repeat history.
Hey jpw, is my math wrong, or was EK Love really really old when he made the speech?
these comments remind me that once an economic system finds success off the slavery and harm of others, its hard to stop it......
this evil trade captured the economics and expansion of the South, even though most whites were not slave holders.
after their freedom, the slaves should have been given 40 acres of land. this would have changed american history.
"I still advise the Negroes to buy land. Buy it anywhere you can get it. Be a free holder, and no powers on earth can keep you down. If the Negroes do not give this subject atention very soon they will see their mistake when it will be too late.....
"I look forward to the day when the entire Continent will be cut up into little flourishing farms. I urge the Negroes to get ready to move off in the mighty march. Get land and cultivate farms--the farmer is a freeman indeed."
---Emmanuel King Love, Baptist Pastor and survivor of American slavery, 1981 speech, "Emancipation Oration"
in this power shift we see today, if the people are able to obtain land and feed themselves they will make it, if the death taxes on farmers, procurement of international land under agenda 21, the destruction of natural seed through the dominance of gm seed in the fields, weakening of people with economics, its repeat history.
Rufus wrote: I value the lives of all men and desire that none should perish. I desire the North did not have a single person of any ethnicity perish over this issue, and desire that not a single person in the south had perished over this issue … You however, submit that the south deserved more than what she received and you submit that the war criminal Sherman was somehow merciful. Terrible.
Very pious-sounding, but it begs a question: what rule of war forbids expropriation or destruction of property of value to the enemy? Note that righteous Abraham made off with a pile of loot from those who kidnapped Lot (Gen. 14:16), & that wasn't even for Sherman's reason.
What strikes me again is, your special pleading for the rights & property of Southern white men. Sherman is a war criminal, you say, but the thousands of slaveowners who stole the liberties & broke up the families of millions of Africans over several generations earns no equivalent censure from you, whether it's directly relevant or not.
Neil wrote: Sherman was actually merciful; he sought to end the War by destroying property, not lives. You seem to care only about what white people lost. Why shouldn't I call that hatred?
I value the lives of all men and desire that none should perish. I desire the North did not have a single person of any ethnicity perish over this issue, and desire that not a single person in the south had perished over this issue. I submit that when two peoples are going in different directions they ought to peaceably separate as in the example of Abraham and Lot. You however, submit that the south deserved more than what she received and you submit that the war criminal Sherman was somehow merciful. Terrible.
Neil wrote: Northern soldiers, & Lincoln, did not fight to free the slaves (at least at 1st, that was unthinkable for most racist Northerners), they fought to preserve the Union. The South was beyond any doubt responsible for starting the War – SC initiated hostilities just because Lincoln sought to resupply a constitutional Federal fort. So far as I'm concerned, the South deserved worse than they got for starting an unnecessary war.
Worse than what Sherman dished out? Really? That's a whole lot of hate you've got going on there.
While I concur with many of Paul's policy goals, his historical analysis is dead wrong & plays into the hands of leftist critics like Bill Maher (who was apparently too ignorant to refute him in detail). Lincoln's only choice was to capitulate in the face of Confederate aggression, or fight.
Does anyone seriously think there would've been no fighting had Lincoln allowed Secession to stand? Think of “Bloody Kansas.” The South was hungry for territory to expand slavery into, even in Latin America.
Sucession, yes, the rebels should have done the right thing and not rebelled. They could have also freed their slaves. The Civil War was not really Lincoln's fault.
Many slaves died at the hands of their masters before the Civil War, too bad it took that many men to correct it.
Rufus wrote: Being responsible for the deaths of over 600,000 people in order to correct the wrong of slavery is not the right thing. Slavery bad yes, killing people...worse.
Northern soldiers, & Lincoln, did not fight to free the slaves (at least at 1st, that was unthinkable for most racist Northerners), they fought to preserve the Union. The South was beyond any doubt responsible for starting the War – SC initiated hostilities just because Lincoln sought to resupply a constitutional Federal fort.
So far as I'm concerned, the South deserved worse than they got for starting an unnecessary war.
Neil wrote: Blacks of his day were certainly smarter than many white people seem to be; they knew perfectly well what the Proclamation implied, & that even such partial emancipation, absent further Congressional action which Lincoln did not yet have, was better than none. So what does it matter what his opinions of racial differences were, however flawed? He did the right thing regardless.
Being responsible for the deaths of over 600,000 people in order to correct the wrong of slavery is not the right thing. Slavery bad yes, killing people...worse.
7
There are a total of 26 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
john uk from wales: "just in case anyone wanted to do a little study on the four..."
