[Lurker]

Ah, Ken Blackwell. Another RINO on his knees with his mouth wide open, begging to be fed.

Feh on him.

[FerociousRabbit]

“[Ron Paul] could be cited for political malpractice” for calling the break from Britain secession instead of revolution.

No, but the author is definately guilty of journalistic malpractice.

[all the best]

The Declaration makes a simple argument:
1. Humans have rights from the Creator
2. Governments exist to secure those rights (a debatable assertion but we’ll roll with it.)
3. When the government fails to secure those rights, we can ditch it and start our own government.
That’s pretty much all it says. If you thought that was true in 1776, when tax rates were 1% and there was no such thing as a the EPA or the FBI or the IRS, why is it not true now? Because we’re so much more free now? And, no, the Declaration did not say that the government is free to violate rights as long as people get to vote on it.
The Declaration establishes that there’s no such thing as treason, and a free government requires the assumption of just secession.
Thus the whole Revolution [of 1775–1783] turned upon, asserted, and, in theory, established, the right of each and every man, at his discretion, to release himself from the support of the government under which he had lived. And this principle was asserted, not as a right peculiar to themselves, or to that time, or as applicable only to the government then existing; but as a universal right of all men, at all times, and under all circumstances.

[x]

Then, again, why is it that the Confederates of 1861 did not claim that their Secession movement was an exercise of the right of revolution? They were careful not to call it revolution. That's because if they as slaveholders had a right of revolution--to secure what they regarded as their unalienable rights--then so did their slaves.

Tricky point. There was much talk in the South of a "Revolution of 1861" at the time, but that paradigm died out, mostly for the reason Blackwell gives.

[VitacoreVision]

Ken Blackwell plays a game of semantics to retort Ron Paul. Pretty sad.

Ken Blackwell, however, is still wrong.

---

secede: To withdraw formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance.

[Flick Lives]

If the Founding Fathers and the Patriots who fought and won the Revolution were seceding, why is it that none of them ever called it secession?

Ken Blackwell gets it wrong. Technically, the "American Revolution" was a secession and not a revolution. A secession is a withdrawal from a group, a revolution is a violet overthrow of the group. We did not overthrow the King of England.

[TBP]

It’s exactly what the Founders were doing; they just chose not to use the word.

[joe fonebone]

I am a small l libertarian...

having said that, ron paul is a nut job..

having said that, ron paul IS more in line with the constitution and the rights of the feds, states and people more so than any rino, and that inlcudes mittens mcromney..

perhaps the “mainstream” republicans are still trying to drive a wedge between libertarians and conservatives, because heaven forbid, if we actually came to the alliance that is natural between us, we could and would dominate the party...

just sayin’

[RKBA Democrat]

Gov. Henry had some particularly choice words about people like Mr. Blackwell. I haven’t the mastery of the language that Gov. Henry did.

I do wish Mr. Blackwell the best. May his handlicking be recognized and appropriately rewarded.

[Carry_Okie]

Those of us who are dissatisfied with the election results--and there are millions of us--have no recourse but to ballots.

When evidence is sufficient to distrust those who count the ballots, recourse reverts from ballots to bullets.

[PaleoBob]

Secession is an empty topic. “Buy-out” is a possibility, though. The commies LOVE money.

[central_va]

Amazing how one word “SECESSION” can evoke such passions. To the status quo lovers it is like showing the cross to a vampire. To the lover of the republic, it is a gate to freedom. No other word does this.

[Ohioan]

My fellow townsman, Ken Blackwell, is playing word games here, but to what actual point? There were a great many comparisons of the right to sever the bonds, as it were, in the discussions leading up to both the severing in 1776 & in 1860 & 1861.

The issue in each case is not the verbiage but the asserted grievances, and those can stir up quite a row among Conservatives--something we really do not need at this moment in time--when directed to the 1860 & 1861 decisions.

While, frankly, I believe--as did many in New England, also, in 1812--that there is a Constitutional right to secede, I sincerely hope that no one will do so, at this time. We have not exhausted the less extreme ways to deal with the terrible crisis in America.

Incidentally Ken needs to understand an essential point. While the colonies were in point of fact, really States in 1775 & 1776, it took the Revolution to vindicate that & the Treaty of Paris to recognize their sovereignty--as opposed to the House of Hanover holding the sovereignty. Secession was seen as an act based upon that sovereignty. (See, if you are interested, Treaty Of Paris--1783, on the sovereignty question.)

William Flax