In response to:

Secession and Other Fantasies

Texas Chris Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 9:51 AM
"Confederates who precipitated the bloodiest war in the nation’s history" Begging the author's pardon, but weren't ALL the battles in the Civil War fought on Southern territory? Let's be honest, it wasn't a "civil" war, as the south wasn't attempting to overthrow the federal government. It was a war perpetrated by the north against the south to prevent secession. Therefore, the blame for the 600,000 deaths must be laid on Lincoln and the North. Further, nullification and secession are American principles, enshrined in the Declaration and the Constitution. A state may nullify unconstitutional actions of the federal government, and, when that fails, may secede and reestablish itself as a sovereign nation. Medved fails.
jmonaco Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 3:06 PM
Not all battles (Antietam and Gettysburg were the only "invasions" of the North) were fought in the South. There were also several dozen small cavalry raids along the Ohio River. All other battles were in the South, the "border states" (e.g., Kentucky), or territories (e.g, New Mexico).
RepubRob2 Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 10:13 AM
If we're being honest here, I think we all know that secession is not going to happen without a strong military presence on the side of the Secessionists. It was somewhat different 160 years ago, when it was at least plausible to expect that a large group of poorly-armed, but highly-principled southern farmers could overtake a better-armed northern army. Today, though, it would be laughable for Secessionists to think they would stand a prayer against the military complex the establishment would array against them - even if the Secessionists had greater numbers. No, in my opinion, this movement must be led by a military that has, itself, become disaffected with the direction we're going.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 10:27 AM
I think the best thing to do is to firmly stand for the right of nullification and secession, but not to use violence. Let the tyrants show themselves for what they are; let THEM resort to force and violence. They might win some battles, but they will ultimately lose the only war that counts--the war of ideas.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 10:04 AM
Chris 102--you are right.

And certainly, by any sane measure, it was NOT the Southern Confederacy that precipitated the bloodiest war in the nation's history--it was the NORTHERN states under the tyrant, Lincoln.

The South did NOT want a war. It merely wanted to exercise its right of peaceful secession. All the tyrant Lincoln had to do, to avoid 700 thousand unnecessary deaths, was to acknowledge that right.

A version of this column appeared originally in THE DAILY BEAST.

Some fringe conservatives seem perversely determined to turn a stinging electoral defeat into an epic, sweeping disaster. That’s the deeper meaning of current talk about impeachment, secession, third parties, civil disobedience, and onrushing apocalypse.

The Conservative Majority Fund has announced a new robocall campaign to build support for impeaching President Obama over mishandling of the affair in Benghazi, Libya, and alleged malfeasance on a host of other issues. Meanwhile, petitions demanding the secession of Texas, Alabama, and at least a half dozen other states have already gathered tens...