The White House has responded to the petition asking to
allow the peaceful withdrawal of the State of Louisiana from the Union.
Jon Carson, Director of the Office of Public Engagement,
responded. Guess what the answer is? I will wait…still waiting…. Have you guessed?
No. The answer is no.
Our founding fathers established
the Constitution of the United States "in order to form a more perfect
union" through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of
self-government.
But what if “self” doesn’t agree with this “government”? Sorry, Charlie. You don’t get a “get out of jail free” card:
But they did not provide a right to
walk away from it.
I didn’t realize that this was a right that was the founders’
to grant.
He then follows with what could be construed as a veiled
threat:
…more than 600,000 Americans died
in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the
Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States.
Of course, this only vindicated the principle that might
makes right, and history is written by the victors.
And shortly after the Civil War
ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that "[t]he Constitution, in all its
provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible
States."
Proving the wisdom in the separation of powers.
So there you have it.
But the best part was found in the section immediately below
Mr. Carson’s response. I have no idea if
it will be there now, if you check the link – I don’t know if this is a
rotating list. Immediately below the
response is a list of other related petitions.
The first one, a petition to:
Deport everyone that signed a
petition to withdraw their state from the United States of America.
I imagine there would be many takers.
h/t Charles Burris
what response, other than that given, would one expect a bureaucrat to deliver?
ReplyDeletethe war of northern aggression, mr lincoln's war, succeeded in converting a voluntary union of free states into an involuntary union of slave states. this makes him great? if you are a megalomaniac craving power, an unequivocal YES is the answer. if you are a small person with a monstrous ego who craves power to force your will on others, then, again, YES is the answer.
as H. Ford stated, 'history is bunk' and in the case of the 'savior' of the union, the 'saint' of America become amerika, H. Ford is without doubt absolutely correct.
The response of "no" was never in doubt. I find the reference to killing 600,000 curious. Certainly, worshiping Lincoln is standard operating procedure, but why bring up the killing of 600,000 in this reply?
Deleteuse of the figure could be for:
Delete-historical purposes: if used to simply give the number, why leave out the fact that the number renders the statist deity, lincoln, the largest mass murderer in the nation's history?
-threat purposes: with a bureaucrat speaking, the use of the number as a threat is the more likely reason it was employed. after all, a bureaucrat, a core statist, will have his way, or else. with his way being threatened by secession, force is what he will advocate to be sure his way remains the only way.
reality: lincoln did not free a single slave. he made slaves of us all to the central state. for this, he is held up as a deity by the power mongers and accepted by the uninformed.
H. Ford was correct: history is bunk.
Carson: "…more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States."
ReplyDeletegpond: "Carson's statement resembles a remark made by an anti-secessionist, one "mike shupp", who Robert Murphy took to task on his blog. I found Murphy's response both entertaining and elucidating."
mike shupp: "My memory — which may be mistaken, since I’m real old and all that — is that the issue of whether states could secede from the Federal Union came up once before in American history. I don’t recall all the trifling details except that a President from Illinois was somehow involved.
Could all you experts enlighten me, please?"
Murphy: "That is really a blood-curdling comment, which would be horrifying to any decent person if it were in a different context. I had toyed with making an OJ Simpson analogy, but decided that would be too crass. So how’s this Mr. Shupp?
Yes, I vaguely recall that event you’re talking about. But wasn’t this issue of whether it’s a good idea for a President to forcibly put down a secession movement, settled once and for all by John Wilkes Booth in a theater?"
Link: http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/11/internet-death-dealers.html
It speaks to the nature of the morality of many in the US when they look so fondly at the several historical events that involved the most bloodshed.
DeleteIt represents the sacrifice to the gods of the religion, I suppose.
If Louisiana believes to have the right, under contract/compact, to withdraw from what was without a doubt a multilateral agreement then why would it *ask* permission to do so? If you have the right to leave an agreement then you simply do it, according to the terms of the contract/compact.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the answer is no, those that were in control of the national government in 1861 effected a coup d' etat - a second revolution in which the original United States of America were transformed.
Thanks - great article.
"If Louisiana believes to have the right, under contract/compact, to withdraw from what was without a doubt a multilateral agreement then why would it *ask* permission to do so?"
DeleteSeveral raised this question, and you are correct with your further comments.
There certainly is benefit to having the dialogue in the open. It helps develop the confidence that those who feel this way toward an over-powerful central government are not alone.
Thank you for stopping by. I see today you have a new post on a topic dear to both of us.
http://stopthestate.com/2013/01/12/balancing-the-pillars/