In response to:

What Ron Paul Gets Wrong

DHE Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 8:24 AM
Sometimes a revolution is just a revolution, sometimes more. Secession basically means, in political term, one or more entities withdrawing from an organization. Our so called "Revolution" involved a secession; 13 colonies seceding from the British Empire. They announced their independence. The French Revolution was actually a much purer revolution, which is basically a sudden change in the government. It can also involve a civil war as it did in France and to a lesser degree did in America. Mr. Blackwell has to give some definitions if he wants to prove a point.
scott s. Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 5:13 PM
No, secession is based on a legal right. Revolution is based on a natural right. And the south understood the difference well, which is why Jeff Davis and others appealed to the natural right of revolution (because there is no legal right of secession)

"In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 defined to be inalienable. Of the time and occasion for its exercise, they, as sovereign, were the final judges each for itself." (Inaugural address given at Montgomery, AL Feb 1861)

Congressman Ron Paul has just delivered his valedictory address in the House of Representatives. And he has told TV interviewers that the American Revolution was a wonderful example of secession. He's a much better OB/GYN, I'm sure, than he is a student of America's history. He could be cited for political malpractice.

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? They certainly had the word back then. They invoked the well-known right of revolution. They had read their John Locke and their Montesquieu,...