Secession: an academic discussion

[Magyars]

"Nonsense on Stilts": The Rhetorical Cornerstone of the American Welfare/Warfare State | Mises Institute

In his new book, Paul C. Graham describes the 1789 Constitution as an attempted coup by the nationalists to consolidate power in the national capitol. At the

mises.org

Enjoy Hades, mr. lincoln.

Interesting article.

 

[BigRed]

Interesting article.

Indeed.

 

[BigRed]

A Short History of the Right to Self-Determination | Ryan McMaken

In his 1927 book Liberalism, the radical classical liberal and economist Ludwig von Mises took a strict and expansive view in favor of secession. Specifically, he noted that respect for the right of self-determination required extant states to allow the separation of new polities seeking secession.

mises.org

 

[jamil]

I have no problem with that concept. It's making a "ought" argument, not an "is" argument.

 

[XDdreams]

Ok, so a state secedes. What happens to all the federal land and military equipment within those borders. I can say with 100% certainty, the fed aint giving that stuff away.

They give it away or leave it behind in foreign countries, but I'm sure they would do everything they could to take it away from a state that chose to secede.

 

[jamil]

"Nonsense on Stilts": The Rhetorical Cornerstone of the American Welfare/Warfare State | Mises Institute

In his new book, Paul C. Graham describes the 1789 Constitution as an attempted coup by the nationalists to consolidate power in the national capitol. At the

mises.org

Enjoy Hades, mr. lincoln.

This is nonsense:

---

“Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves” (emphasis added).

---

First, it looks like the author needs to force the meaning of the GA to be about "self-determination" so that they can claim hypocrisy. But if the Confederates fought for the right of their people to govern themselves, their own words betray them. They fought for the right to own people. The States' rights claim was just a smokescreen. In legislation for 20 years leading up to the Civil War, Southern statesmen didn't give a flying **** about Northern states' rights. They did all they could to thwart it. But now, Confederate apologists do all they can to pretend that the heart of the matter was indeed about the right to own people as property.