The media across America
has seized upon Gov. Rick Perry’s recent comments
that don’t completely rule out secession as an option for Texas,
should the federal government’s powers grow too oppressive.
Democrats have hyped up the rhetoric to ludicrous levels, saying Perry was actually calling for secession now. A liberal South Texas democrat who never served in the U.S. military even suggested that immigrants are more patriotic than Perry – who served in the U.S. Air Force for five years.
Underlying it all is a misunderstanding about what exactly Perry said. As Jason Embry in the Austin-American Statesman correctly pointed out, Perry wasn’t calling for secession, and even said specifically that it was not an option at this time.
All Perry said was that there are conceivable situations in which Texans could find themselves under oppression. It was a hypothetical situation and Perry gave a hypothetical answer. Any extreme political option is on the table in any extreme hypothetical. Regicide is wrong in a Democracy, but you can hardly fault the Italians for stringing up Mussolini.
If “oppression” is too remote in the minds of Perry’s critics, then they should recognize that his hypothetical is equally remote. Yet that’s not what they’re doing. Does that mean they’re implicitly agreeing with him that such an oppressive federal government is on the horizon?
If you haven’t at least thought about it, you’re not a real Texan
We all love Texas here, we love our Texas heritage, and we love our Independent legacy. We, like Perry, also love America, and believe that leaving it should be a last resort. But in order to say that we are a free people, it must be a resort in an extreme case where we feel that our freedom is in danger.
If you’ve never even considered Texas being independent – not even while defending your state in an alcohol-filled argument with other Americans in a bar in Prague – then you quite simply aren’t a real Texan. Sure, 90 percent of it is an in-cheek jest, but behind the idea lies the general belief that Texans cannot be tamed like sheep, goats or New Jerseyites.
In his speech on Wednesday, Perry prominently quoted Sam Houston, the state’s seventh governor. If Perry was a wild-eyed secessionist, he could have just as well pointed out that Houston was also our first and third President.
“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may,” Perry quoted Houston saying.
But the mainstream media – which consists of the highest density per-capita in America of people who have never read a history book – failed to point out that Houston was a virulent opponent of secession in 1861.
A little history
Houston had led the Texas Army to victory at San Jacinto, served as the President of the Republic of Texas, helped bring Texas into the Union and became its first United States Senator. It was only years later, when he took the job as governor as a kind of retirement gig, that he was placed in the forefront of the civil war crisis. Extremists wanted to secede and join the confederacy. Houston fought them all the way, knowing that the result would be a disaster.
It wasn’t a popular position, and even Sam Houston’s own son was against him. The legislature revolted against him, passing the secession ordinance. When Houston refused to sign, he was thrown out of office.
In his own remarks, Perry made very plainly his love for the United States. Although he never mentioned it in his speech, from 1972 to 1977, Perry served in the U.S. Air Force as a pilot of a C-130 transport aircraft. He served much of his time in the Middle East, even flying into the then-ally of Iran.
Thus, the most egregious – and insulting – comment of the week in response to Perry was by that of State Rep. Richard Pena Raymond, who has never served in the U.S. military. In the Rio Grande Guardian, Raymond said of the pride that new citizens have in America: “I think it means more to them right now than it does to Rick Perry.”
Liberals like to refer to Republicans who don’t serve in the military as chickenhawks. Raymond’s comments make me wonder if he isn’t a chicken patriot. Calling into question someone’s love of America is apparently OK when it’s Rick Perry, who served his country in a dangerous part of the world – and simply had the good fortune to serve in a time of peace. But if one conservative questions whether Michelle Obama loves her country – when she quite clearly said that at one point she didn’t – woe be unto them.
Is this even possible?
The media was quick to point out that secession is not legal, nor was it authorized by Texas’ entry into the Union. It wasn’t authorized because most Texans – most Americans, including many people in non-Southern states like Vermont – believed it was an inherent right. After all, the states had joined together freely and created the federal government out of thin air. In the constitution, the states essentially delegated authority to the federal government. What job have you ever been in where the employees delegate authority to their boss? It’s clear that the states – as the representatives of the people – were supposed to be the boss in all those powers that they didn’t give up by name.
Secession was not addressed in the constitution at all, but was declared unconstitutional in an 1869 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Texas v. White, a case which probably represents the silliest and most indefensible legal logic that has ever been uttered in the court chambers. I defy the best lawyer in Texas to convince a single Kindergarten student based upon it.
The gist of the argument is that the Articles of Confederation made the union a “perpetual” one, and that the preamble of the constitution stated that its mission was “to create a more perfect union.” What then, the court argued, could be more perfect than perpetual?
Obviously it’s a subjective opinion, but more to the point, the Articles of Confederation was not amended by the constitution, it was superceded by it. It became null and void in 1787 – 58 years before Texas joined the union, and Texans never signed it.
But that’s what the Supreme Court ruled, in a case in which the Republican congress and administration had basically ordered them to come up with a specific outcome regardless of the cost to logic or precedent. But it was a flawed – and therefore remains a reversible decision. To anyone who thinks that the Supreme Court is as infallible as the pope, I have two words: Dred Scott.
And of course, that’s not even considering whether Texas was even legally brought into the union in the first place. Failing to pass the treaty of annexation in the U.S. Senate, congress instead opted for a Joint Resolution, and ever since then, many have argued that there is no principle in international law for two nations to treat through an internal piece of legislation like a resolution. This is the argument behind the Republic of Texas group which tried to declare independence in the 1990s.
All of it’s moot, because the fact of the matter is that Texas is part of the United States under the principle of conquest following the civil war, just like the Indians are part of America. That, of course, opens up the timeless question, “Does might make right?”
This is meaningless and academic if the government lives under the constitution we have. Obama’s massive power grab – it cannot be considered anything but – is pretty heinous, but the tripwire hasn’t been tripped yet. All Governor Perry is saying is that he can see it in the distance through the jungle undergrowth.
Perry’s right. As long as America works and as long as our government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, secession isn’t an option and shouldn’t be on the table. But to say that there is no scenario in which it wouldn’t be is to essentially say that were our ties of love to America to be replaced shackles instead, we would have no recourse and would simply have to submit to losing our freedom.
As Sam Houston so eloquently said, Texans will never do that.
A New Storm Over Texas
Perry and the Secession Comments
Editorial by James Aalan Bernsen
23 April 09
Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama
because he is not eligible to be President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five
of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact regardless of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, or Mars).
He is not a Natural Born Citizen
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
His mother was too young to pass on her US citizenship
according to the law in effect when he was born.
Check it out:
His usurpation cannot be corrected by Congress,
it can only be corrected by his resignation, his removal
by an amendment to the Constitution
which will never happen.