Secession and Nullification

Chris Matthews and MSNBC is on a rant again regarding secession and nullification. This is getting old. The Civil War was fought between 1861 and 1865. Revisionists would have you believe that this war was fought specifically over the issue of slavery. The latest trigger point was the Sesquicentennial Celebration in South Carolina being held. Negro groups and left wing media are screaming about how disgraceful celebrating a political act instituted by the South Carolina Legislature and 6 other Southern States. Disgraceful? So should we also consider celebrating the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain as disgraceful? Of course not. Both were political acts, both instituted by legal bodies and for essentially similar reasons. The parliament in England was dictating policy and law from London even with a colonial representative. The guiding force in London was for the glory of the empire, the rights of the colonials were of secondary importance. The southern states felt then that they were being pushed around by Washington and their needs and right were being neglected. As long as there was balance in the Senate, the southern states were content. Have we forgotten the Missouri Compromise? For every free state entering the Union, there would be a slave state. There was balance. The states decided if they wanted to be free or slave. Keep in mind, until the amended 13th Amendment was approved in December 1865. Did I say amended? Yes I did.

What was the original 13th Amendment signed by President Buchanan and later approved of by Abraham Lincoln in his inaugural address in 1861?

"The Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. President Buchanan signed it the same day, which was also his last full day in office; it was later ratified by three states: Ohio, Maryland and Illinois.[23] This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adoption any constitutional amendment that would have abolished or restricted slavery, or permitted the Congress to do so. This proposal was an unsuccessful attempt to convince the Southern states not to secede from the Union."

"Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, specifically referenced the Corwin Amendment: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution...has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."".

Even Abraham Lincoln approved of a constitutional amendment to forbid abolishment of slavery in the United States, he said so himself to the nation!! Lincoln was a gradualist, he believed as the South did, it was only a matter of time before slavery died on it's own.

Now, lets look at the numbers. It take, by the constitution 60% of the states to approve such amendment, 3 NORTHERN states had already approved it. Take the 11 Southern states which seceded that would bring the number to 14 states. There were as of 1860, 33 states. 20 would be needed for ratification, so only 6 more would be needed. Now, given the fact that slave labor meant that raw materials, such as cotton made US made items competitive, it is not beyond the realm of possibility the manufacturing states would have voted for the amendment, in fact to keep Negroes in the South would have been yet another reason to vote for it. Before the matter could be taken up by the other Northern states, the Civil War had begun.

Anyway, to suggest that slavery was the ONLY issue seems to be a red herring since there was a constitutional amendment on the table and only 6 more votes would be needed to ratify. Believe it or not, that amendment is still considered pending and could be approved.

Now, lets take a look at slavery in itself until December 1865. Whether we want to admit it or not, slavery was legal in the United States. Slaves were an asset, a piece of property, owned by a slave owner. Think of a slave as a car, you put gas in the tank, air in the tires, wash and wax it. They were not considered by anyone at the time as human beings, from a practical standpoint. The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic plan to foster a slave revolt in the South. It also denied slave owners due process for compensation for their loss of property. Imagine today the Federal government seizing your home or property and just giving it away without compensation. There would be such an uproar, possibly rebellion.

The end of the Civil War brought an Army of Occupation into the Southern states. Not only did the South lose the war, but they were subjected to an army of occupation, military control of their lives. Their homes destroyed, property seized by legal and illegal means. For 10 years the South suffered the indignation of being an occupied land. Everything they fought for, states rights was destroyed. Millions of Negroes were free to roam the countryside, North and South. Homeless and jobless they were, just as the whites who were left alive. The Federal government crammed the Negro down the throats of all of America, promising 40 acres and a mule. So here you have it, a war which was lost, an army of occupation, homes lost a way of living destroyed and who was promised 40 acres and a mule? Is it any wonder, given the times that there would not be some sort of backlash?

Lets fast forward to today for a moment. To illustrate my point as to relevance, look at the immigration debate regarding illegals. Do we not take issue with illegals taking over our jobs, even though we would not be caught dead doing them? These illegals are taking resources only Americans should have. There is a belief that they get free medical care, food stamps and welfare. Their children infest our schools for free..the list goes on and on. Now, given the situation today, is it so far fetched to believe that the South and the North felt the same way? Of course they did. The record is clear on this point. I wonder, had the North lost the war and was occupied by the Confederate Army, there would not have been backlash as well. My guess is that there would have not been such a thing. The South was never interested in occupying the North, they just wanted to be left alone.

So, had the 13th Amendment been approved and had the South not seceded, what then? Would we have a Negro President today? Would we have Civil Rights? With all the bloodshed of patriots on both sides, maybe in the long run it was worth it.

As for secession. I has been said that the issue of secession was settled on the battlefield, not in the courts. This is only half true. How can secession be illegal if there is no law against it? The constitution refers to creating and allowing states in, not the reverse.

As I recall, the 10th Amendment covers this issue, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". In other words, any power not specifically delegated by the constitution belongs to the states. There is no power to allow for secession or disallow it, therefore secession should be legal.

A later court ruling after the Civil War states this regarding secession in Texas v. White, "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.". This case was decided by the Supreme Court in 1869. Apparently there are two legal means for a state to leave the Union, one is by revolution (interesting choice of words) or consent of the states, which may suggest a reverse dissolution of admittance to the union. So this means that had the Southern states declared their own independence, much like the American Declaration of Independence, it would have been legal? Methinks it's a matter of semantics.

As for states rights? Abraham Lincoln ordered Federal troops to Annapolis, MD to prevent Maryland from voting for secession. Illinois, Lincoln's adopted state (he was from Kentucky), by one vote almost voted for secession.

The rationale of states rights is not the same as it was back then. Today with so much Federal money flowing into the states, the Feds keep them in line, compelling them to adopt laws and regulations in line with Federal law or they threaten to cut off the money to that state. The answer to this dilemma is simple, stop taking the money. No, railing against Federal interference makes for great political theater. The states want the money without any rules or regulations. Some states want the Feds to write them a blank check without any strings attached. That will never happen.

It's like raising a teenager who complains about the rules of the house or a curfew, or who can be their friends. You tell them, when you are living under my roof, you do what I say. When you go out on your own, you can do whatever you want.

I say, if any state wants to leave, leave. Lets stop this nonsense about slavery and civil rights. We cannot go back. So lets move forward. If you want to go it alone, then go, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Earmarks for Alaska

Please understand, I have nothing against Alaska. I like Alaska, have been there several times. What I cannot begin to understand is why there is ANY Federal money heading to Alaska for ANY reason. Last year, $2.1B was allocated and spent by the state of Alaska for Federally supported programs. Just this week, another $26M in earmarks were included in the Omnibus spending bill before the US Senate. Sen. McCain tweeted about just one of the earmarks, but that just scratched the surface. He whined about $2M for a ferry landing at Port Lion, AK. I did some checking. Virtually all of the earmarks are geared towards the native Alaskan groups in Alaska. Which might suggest a racial bias in Alaska. The state won't fund these projects, so the Federal government has to.

Here are some facts. The state of Alaska has in their 'slush' fund $36B collecting interest. The state of Alaska just announced a dividend to every Alaska citizen of $1,281.00 for an individual, $5,405.00 for a family of five for 2010, a total of approximately $819M. That is for ONE YEAR. Alaskans pay virtually no sales tax.

Now, explain to me why the $26M could not be taken from the slush fund or deducted from the $819M dividend.

I can understand if a state does not have the financial resources to take care of their own people and infrastructure that the Federal government steps in and helps out, but clearly the state of Alaska can afford to take care of their own.

Am I missing something?

Republican Tax Breaks for the wealthy?

Okay, someone explain this to me in simple terms. When the Repubs were asked to vote for extending unemployment bennies, they said NO, not unless there were offsets, in other words, they had to be paid for without affecting the deficit. The Repubs ranted on about the stimulus law, that it increased the deficit and would produce NO new jobs. Well, it did create or save millions of jobs, clearly it worked, but still the issue of the increased deficit is what they ran on before the last election. Repubs promised to fight for spending reductions and lower taxes to match. When given the opportunity to partially resolve the tax and spend issues with PayGo, which 7 Repub Senators co-sponsored, those 7 Senators would not vote for their own bill. I have heard NOTHING from the Tea Baggers on this latest debacle. Now the Repubs are signing off on tax breaks for not only those making less than $250K in PERSONAL, not corporate income, but for those who fared very well with the tax breaks for the uber wealthy. What makes no sense is this. If they would not sign off unemployment bennies without offsets, why is it okay now? They would not sign off on any spending without offsets, yet now they are willing to do so to the tune of $700B over the next 2 years! This $700B adds to the deficit they want to reduce. A deficit they blamed Mr. Obama for and now they are willing to add to it. I am totally confused. How can you run an election on reducing the deficit, to reduce spending and to have offsets and then turn around and do exactly what they blames the Dems for? They railed against the bank bailouts and the auto maker bailouts, both of which have been successful.

Someone explain this to me so I can understand.

Obama caves !!!

For three years now I have been an unquestioned supporter of Mr. Obama, until today.

I am not the smartest guy. I am not a politician or economist or a lawyer. I am not rich. I am disabled and a Vietnam Vet. I never made more than $32,000 a year in my life. I am just a regular person. No one special. I am a lifelong registered Republican.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest persons make no fiscal sense. This was personal income, not corporate taxes. We as a nation cannot afford these tax cuts and they have NO bearing on job creation since they are PERSONAL income tax cuts.

The President caved in to the Republicans who held the unemployed hostage. This was just plain wrong.

I can only hope and pray that Congress does not go along with this disaster. Maybe Mr. Obama will grow a backbone, recognize this is wrong and veto the bill.

Mr. Obama, please..stand up for the 98% of us who have already gone on record that this is just plain wrong and unfair.

Don't Ask Don't Tell. DADT

I am not sure what the big deal is with DADT. A little history here. Prior to DADT, the Military would ask you if you were a homosexual and if you told the truth, they would reject you. DADT made an accommodation in this area by eliminating the question. If you were gay and were willing to follow the rules, in other words not engage in homosexual activity while on duty and kept your sexual orientation quiet, you could serve.

From my point of view, the only practical difference between getting rid of DADT is simply this, gays can now serve openly if they choose to. The only difference between now and repeal is the fact they can actually say they are gay if they choose to and not be kicked out. Gays are serving now in the military, that is a fact. For the life of me, this is much ado about nothing. It's not like there will be an influx of gays in the military except for those 80,000 who have been kicked out for admitting it, those who may wish to return to active duty.

This is not necessarily a moral issue for me. The reality is there are gay folks, simple fact of life. To deny them the opportunity to serve just like the rest of us seems unfair. They are good Americans who want to serve their country, to defend her as those before. They don't do it because they are gay, they do it it because they are Americans.

The military conducted their studies and the facts are clear. DADT must go. Congress should accept this. The military wants it to end, if it's ok with them, who are we to say otherwise? Think of it this way. When was the last time the military actually asked the rank and file what they thought? NEVER. The answer is clear, 70% said, get rid of it.

Bush Tax Cuts and unemployment are a red herring

Ok, let me see if I can explain my understanding of the effect of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

First, these tax cuts have little to do with small business. Only 2% of those affected by the tax cuts are small business owners. These are people who have cottage industries who probably don't make an AGI of $250,000.00. Even if they did, they can always increase expenditures by either buying more equipment with accelerated depreciation or hire more employees to offset. To suggest that these individual tax breaks, if allowed to expire will affect employment is a flat out lie. These taxes are on PERSONAL income, not corporate tax rates. In other words, a hedge fund manager who makes an AGI of $10,000,000.00 of PERSONAL income, will pay roughly 3% more in taxes that they pay now if the tax breaks are allowed to sunset. The people most affected are those who over the last 8 years have seen their incomes rise by nearly 100%. Those making less than $250K have seen their incomes nearly flat line. To tell me that those in the higher income brackets cannot afford the slightly higher taxes is laughable.

Personal income taxes on the uber wealthy have no effect on US unemployment. It is hardly likely they buy at WalMart or Sears for that matter. One Congressman has shown the average tax increase is roughly $60-80K, which is enough to buy, say a cheap Mercedes or diamond jewelry or some other high end item. How does this trickle down to the average worker? It doesn't. What we are talking about is an additional $700B deficit to allow the wealthy to maintain their current lifestyle. Who ends up paying the debt and debt service on this $700B? We do and our children and grandchildren. Basically, the rest of us subsidize the tax breaks for the wealthy. That hardly seems fair, ethical or moral.

Again, let me say this. This is PERSONAL income, not corporate taxes. I would suspect that those making more than $250,000.00 probably have the opportunity to negotiate a higher compensation package to offset the higher taxes. I mean a simple 3% increase in compensation annually will keep them neutral.

As I have stated before, if Mr. Obama lays down on this issue I can guarantee he will lose my vote for 2012.