Ron Paul: "Secession Is a Deeply American Principle"

While other Republicans distance themselves from secession petitions that have sprouted up in states across the country, leave it to Ron Paul to jump directly into the fray.

"Secession is a deeply American principle," the outgoing Republican congressman wrote on his website. Evoking America's secession from England, he added: "There is nothing treasonous or unpatriotic about wanting a federal government that is more responsive to the people it represents."

The petitions have appeared in more than 30 states since President Obama's re-election and are posting to a White House channel that promises an official response to any proposal that collects more than 25,000 signatures. The one from Paul's home state, Texas, has been the most popular, with 115,000 signatures and counting.

Unsurprisingly, the White House has yet to weigh in.

• Category

  News & Politics

[nowestmo]

Well, Mr. Paul, the Federal Government kicking your rebel ass six ways to Sundayis also a "deeply held American principle".

[Wishbone Nolan]

The last time there was secession was when the South wanted to retain their slaves. These new secessionists are just as racist and clueless about history.

Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are an idiot's idea of a genius.

[CerealKillerbl]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

Secessionists are the true patriots, trying to escape tyrannical government and give themselves and their people better lives. If anybody still buys the public school taught schtick about the civil war, you are in desperate need of a history lesson.

[lollypopalopicus]

Actually, Slavery was a minor issue in the civil war. They wanted independence from the North because the North bought resources from the South and was using it to industrialize faster. The South wanted to become independent and also had a large amount of British Loyalists, which is why the British, who had already abolished Slavery, supported the South. The South was forced to accept all the laws of the North. Slavery being abolished was just one of them.

[thomasthetans]

Seems like you don't know much about history yourself. The southern states succeed from the union because they wanted to keep slavery (democrats). The states petitioning to succeed now are seeing the economic failures that the federal government is putting us through cause of the democrats. socialism is slavery bounding people to things they don't want, and can't break away from if it gets crappy. Sounds like anther form of slavery to me.

[Xaiano]

in a vote for president, in, for example, Florida - everyone has a fair and equal say, they all cast merely one vote for their presidential candidate. That vote is a democratic vote. Because the united states is a union of these states, the united states is a constitutional republic, this does not change that a single vote is democratic - there is no such thing as a 'constitutional republic' vote. The system of government was never an issue.

[F0x1214]

Socrates was killed by the majority, does that mean it was the right choice? Slavery was widely accepted in the past, was it the right choice? Democracy is probably the worst form of government. As an example take the 9/11 false flag, the majority bought into it; was it right that because of it we went and killed a million in the Middle East? Is the majority's will the right choice? No.

[F0x1214]

There were no Democratic elections and there have never been. In a true Democracy everyone is supposed to vote and have a fair and equal say. All our voting processes are of a Constitutional Republic where it's known not everyone will vote. A democracy is inefficient, we all don't have an equal say on the schools, bridges, laws we make. Democracy is also inefficient when the majority are illiterate and easily fooled, like the majority of American people. The founders wanted the smartest to chose

[Xaiano]

You have clearly misunderstood - My point is that secession [because they don't want Obama as president] is undemocratic if the state has democratically voted in favour of Obama.

As far as I can tell from google, the secessionists back in the 18th century outnumbered the loyalists by a significant margin. If you have a more detailed source, please link it.

[F0x1214]

Google is your friend. Educate yourself about the Patriots and the Loyalists. Your point is that secession is undemocratic, well guess what? The U.S. is not a Democracy and the Declaration of Independence gives the people the right to secede. The U.S. was intended to be a union of colonies/countries with a small central government, not the opposite.

[Xaiano]

I don't know how you can keep lambasting me when you aren't reading my posts. I have never, nor will I ever even claim that the US is a democracy. I simply said that the votes for elected officials are democratic votes, which they are.

Also that link is merely course notes and says nothing of the 2/3rds of colonists. One cannot simply assume they did not care or supported the crown based on nothing at all. I still cannot find any comprehensive research on the subject.

[F0x1214]

The majority of the people are usually ignorant idiots that are fooled easily. A country would not last as a Democracy. A constitutional republic, on the other hand, recognizes that rights are inalienable and thus cannot be revoked whether the majority like it or not. Just because people vote doesn't mean we are in any aspect a Democracy. The more you claim for Democracy the less Constitution and rights you will get.