Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

One Nation Indivisible?

November 14, 2012 by  

One Nation Indivisible?
PHOTOS.COM

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

These words were adopted by Congress on June 22, 1942. It was the final evolution of the original pledge written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. (The words “under God” were added in 1954.)

Bellamy was a Baptist minister and Christian socialist, and he was the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy. He wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance for publication in a children’s magazine as part of a national public school celebration of Columbus Day. The event was conceived by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism by selling flags to public schools and magazines to students.

I don’t know if it’s still done; but for many years, schoolchildren across the South recited the pledge each morning. Political rallies and government meetings are often begun with a recitation of the pledge.

People say it with patriotic fervor, with their hands placed dutifully on their hearts. They don’t realize its value as a propaganda tool. The Nation was not conceived as “indivisible,” though the War of Northern Aggression made it so.

Now, thousands of people who have dutifully and with patriotic spirit recited that pledge are signing online petitions to secede peacefully from the union. What will they say next time they recite the pledge?

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “One Nation Indivisible?”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    “Bob Livingston,”

    NO, SIR. I WAS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL [SECOND GRADE] WHEN Memphis City Schools STOPPED HAVING THE Pledge of Allegiance (CIRCA MAY 1974).

    • Jimmy the Greek

      I first went to school in 1955 in Perthamboy N J and they did the plague and the the lords prayer and in later years they read the 23 psalm that was done first thing after rool call .

      • Grammar King

        You went to school?

      • Flashy

        Is the plague a dance something akin to the Watusi?

      • Robert Smith

        Question asked: “What will they say next time they recite the pledge?”

        Doesn’t matter. If they want to quit and go away they can’t be trusted to stick with the new whatever it is.

        Rob

      • http://teamlaw.org/TrusteeMessage.htm# Jazzabelle

        LOL Bob. Tell that to George Washington.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        THAT WAS “COOL,” “Flashy!”

    • http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html tinnyray

      You might enjoy this recent discovery: The original Pledge of Allegiance was the origin of the stiff-armed salute adopted later by the National Socialist German Workers Party (see the work of the symbologist Dr. Rex Curry). Thanks.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    I said the pledge of allegiance every day for most of my school career. And I follow it to the best of my ability. I am loyal to the Flag and Republic. With respect Mr. Livingston the nation was founded to be indivisible. It was not intended to fail but to survive. The Civil War was when America could have gone the way of Rome or the Weimar Republic. When anarchy could have come and the nation could have been torn into a series of bickering nations. Secession is the wanton break up of the nation. It is no different then a person cutting off one of their limbs. It cannot be conducted peacefully. Secession is a last resort tactic. I believe the founders would have wanted secession to be a last defense against tyranny and a a way to ensure the survival of the Republic. Our country is no where near that point. As such I go back to my metaphor of cutting off a limb. You cut off the limb when it dies or when it contains a disease that will spread. You do not cut off a limb because of minor pain or because you think there is a disease. There is a difference between what you think and what is.

    As for the pledge being a propaganda tool Mr. Livingston. Any expression of support for anything could be construed as a propaganda tool. The flag itself could be construed as a propaganda tool. Just because some thing can be misused does not make it evil. Mr. Livingston your own sites banner says ” Live Free in an Unfree World”. Could such a highly charged statement be called propaganda and your articles propaganda tools, yes. But does that make them those things, no. The is a difference between some thing that can be misused and some thing that cannot be used for good.

    • eddie47d

      Well said Jeremy Leochner. The two kickers in the Pledge of Allegiance is the addition of Under God which was added to please the anti-communism folks who had swept into government and the religious right. That may seem fair enough because things do change over time but isn’t that tinkering with someones elses work (Francis Bellamy). Would it be okay if someone rewrote Tom Sawyer by adding a few extra paragraphs. Wouldn’t that be plagiarizing? The other thing is the phrase of Liberty and Justice for All.To me they are beautiful words and have always meant that America has always been an inclusive nation. Yet do we practice what it preaches?

      • rocket man

        eddy everything that i have read that you have written, you are against the constitution. You are against what America has always stood for, if you dont like it here all you libs, instead of trying to change this country why dont you go to another country and see if you like it there. there is nothing holding you here,and by the way you can take the [expletive deleted] in the whit house with you!!!!!!!!!

      • http://google big T-little roy

        we are rocket men! go! goes the grace of logic or the flight into never, never land of wrong idealism, but we are paltry idealists, with hope and dreams of self preservation!

      • boyscout

        Also well stated, eddie. However, the word you are looking for is not palagerism (claiming another’s work as your own), nor would it be expurgation (removal of origional material and alteration of relavency). What we are dealing with here is addition of the unauthorized that alters relavency. I would like to add that all of these tools have been employed by many pundit “tools” to rewrite history for their own propagandic purposes. and will likely continue to do so.

      • Wil

        Tom Sawyer? Wasn’t that already banned by the left for no longer being PC enough?

      • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

        rocket man,

        Everything that was posted is accurate, and follows the US Constitution. Since you obviously don’t believe that it does, will you explain why you think that it doesn’t?

        BTW, this country is OURS. ALL of ours. We are free to disagree with what you believe. We are free to agree. To argue.

        Telling us to leave our OWN country because you don’t LIKE what we have to say is just plain wrong, not to mention that it goes against the ideals that this country was founded on.

      • Flashy

        Wil…both the far left and the far right have attacked Tom Sawyer being in school libraries and used in the classroom

      • Robert Smith

        Flashy says: “both the far left and the far right have attacked Tom Sawyer being in school libraries and used in the classroom”

        Which is exactly what makes it great and should keep it in the classroom.

        Rob

      • eddie47d

        I can’t help you RocketMan if you don’t believe in Liberty and Justice for All.That is your unAmerican problem!

      • ibcamn

        actualy tom sawyer did get rewrote a few years back,parts of the story were deleated and all of the words “nigger” were removed and boy were cut from any referance to a black person,check it out for yourself..it was done without permission by a liberal progressive printing company!!.and still to this day do it to other classics and to almost all of the school books our children read and learn from..the same company and their affiliate companies!

        • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

          Wow. That takes a lot of hubris to do something this radical. The nerve of him and NewSouth Books publishing those books this way is terrible. So, there are 219 uses of the word “nigger” in Huck Finn. The main reason that these books are used, even in schools, is that it is a slice of the way things were during that part of our history.

          Thank goodness that all the other book publishers are not doing this. Both “Tom Sawyer” and “Huck Finn” are far past the rights to a copyright. They can be found at most books stores and libraries. They can be found, also, at Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/

          They accept help for transcribing books, too. They are all free, and the people who transcribe them are volunteers.

      • http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html tinnyray

        Francis Bellamy was a religious wacko Christian socialist and the Pledge was a small part of a larger program. If the Pledge’s larger program were performed in schools then it would include hymns, prayers, various references to the Bible and God, including the phrase “under God.” Of course, at that time, Bible reading etc was common in schools, and Francis wanted the government to take over all schools and impose such activity by law. When the government granted his wish, government schools imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official policy. See the work of the historian Dr. Rex Curry.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002627304547 Poli Tecs

      Great reply Jeremy!

      Its all about “context” isn’t it. It is absolutely important to make the distinction between Weimar and America.

      1. America created the separate powers – KEY!
      2. From separate powers we “Constituted” a governmental system BY the people and FOR the people and NOT a ruling class whom grant our rights; our rights come from GOD – KEY!

      So the Pledge (in context) is a reverence to a nation governing itself by the authority of God NOT another man.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dixie.davis.9 Dixie Suzan Davis

        Poli Tecs – I beg to differ. The words “We the people…” in the preamble was the first item that came under hew and cry against adopting and ratifying the Constitution. Patrick Henry of Virginia got up and spoke against ratification of the Constitution. He read those words and instantly denounced it on the basis that it was a lie. A document that lies in its first few words should not be trusted. In the legal sense he is correct. The Constitution was written by agents of the States sent to revise the Articles of Confederation. To reivise inherently includes the right to revise 100%. That is write a new one. The agents of the States signed the protocol document by state. We now know what happened in the Preamble with the discover of Madisons Notes on the Constitutional Convention in 1838, unavailable to Patrick Henry. The original Preamble expressly named all 13 states. BUT somebody pointed out that suppose all 13 didn’t ratify the Constitution. The Preamble would be a lie. Hence in a crash program the Committee on style rewrote it to what we now have. Patrick Henry pointed out that the Preamble presupposed one nation without states or delegated powers and that the Constitution was done by the entire population. He was correct since the Preamble obscured the States who created it. So the words have been used in the worst sense, We the people and NOT we the States. It is still used today.

      • CaroleAnn

        I am old enough to remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag every morning in class before the UNDER GOD was added to it., I always felt it was wrong to add it and still do.

        • navyjr

          I remember both versions too; under God didn’t bother me so much, because our Founders were Godly men, which is NOT to say they were all Christians as so many assert, and because our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles!

      • Vigilant

        Dixie Suzan Davis, you’d better revisit the 10th Amendment.

        “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.”

        Now, I wonder where “or to the people” came from?

        The very basis of our Constitution is the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson eloquently expresssed the dictum of Natural Law that EACH INDIVIDUAL is sovereign in their own right. Or are you attempting to tell me that you subordinate your sovereignty to a state government?

        “We the People” are the first three words of that estimable document, the Constitution, and it means “we the people.”

        Your neoconfederate view of things denies the very fact that the main reason for writing the Constitution was to overcome the loose confederation of states in the Articles of Confederation, in which states were more powerful than the central government.in accomplishing the duties of the new nation.

      • GALT
      • GALT

        Actually “oxyMORON” (never, ever) Vigilant…..

        We the People, does not mean We the people……..they don’t look the same and
        they do not mean the same thing……

        Shows you what happens when drunks hold secret meetings for extended periods of time
        during really warm weather………

      • GALT

        Poli…….sorry no “god” involved……..

      • Vigilant

        From Wikipedia:

        “The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government, nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble’s limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication…”

        “The phrase “People of the United States”…has been construed as affirming that the national government created by the Constitution derives its sovereignty from the people…as well as confirming that the government under the Constitution was intended to govern and protect “the people” directly, as one society, instead of governing only the states as political units. The Court has also understood this language to mean that the sovereignty of the government under the U.S. Constitution is superior to that of the States. Stated in negative terms, the Preamble has been interpreted as meaning that THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT THE ACT OF SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES. (caps mine).”

        “Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the “Union,” and the country is called the “United States of America,” the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States. The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law, dissolution of the Union, or secession from it, are not contemplated by the Constitution.”

        BOTTOM LINE: An amendment to the Constitution would be required to legalize “state nullification of any federal law, dissolution of the Union, or secession from it,”

    • gerald l. nuttall

      hear, hear !!!

    • http://google big T-little roy

      you are an f-bombing idiot! praise thee Jeremy!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Thank you roy. I must point out that your comment leaves me unsure as to whether you are calling me an idiot, praising me or both. I am just wondering.

    • Redsdad

      Since all 50 states now have secession petitions in place, the analogy of cutting off a limb really does not apply. It is more like removing cancerous blue spots from ones body.

      • Jimmy the Greek

        That could work as long as we could purge the blue voters from the red states .

      • Steve E

        Jimmy, I don’t know if you can get the blue voter out of the Red states, but the Red states could make people take a test on the Constitution before voting and that would eliminate the blue voters because there is no way they would ever understand the Constitution.

        • navyjr

          Make sure it’s written, and printed ONLY in English!

    • Jimmy the Greek

      News FLASH for Jeremy : We well soon be the Weimar Republic if we don’t shut down the fed and get back control of our money from the zionist bankers ! When things get that bad i only hope we have a Hitler to fix things like they were fixed in Germany . I have lived in Texas since 1976 and would be happy that a pig in excrement to have Texas secede from the union and would be honored to die for the cause .

      • Joe Hammond

        I take it that if you want a “Hitler” you are a Nazi. Am I wrong on that account? Does anyone else support the idea of a Nazi seizure of power? I don’t.

      • alpha-lemming

        Long live Freedonia !!!!!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Jimmy there is a vast difference between us and Weimar. For one thing our republic has been in existence for over 200 years as opposed to the Weimar Republic which only lasted from 1918 to 1933. The Weimar Republic never really held the faith or support of the people and there were differences in the structure and laws. Plus the Weimar Republic was conceived at the end of World War1 when heavy reparations and general devastation ravaged the country. Hitler gained popularity two times during the course of his rise to power. The first in the wake of World War 1 when Germany was in total chaos and second in the Great Depression when unemployment skyrocketed as did inflation. None of those circumstances even remotely resemble our country today. Here just like then the only way a person like Hitler could gain any power is when the people panic in an overwhelming situation. However unlike Germany our country is founded on the principles of equality and liberty and does not lend itself towards any kind of ruler much less an absolute one like hitler.

      • Steve E

        We already have a Hitler. It’s spelled OBAMA.

      • eddie47d

        So much ignorance from Steve E and so little time to debate that selfish ignorance!

    • Stuart Shepherd

      Now THIS is a very deep discussion and essential to our view of “America”- personally and historically (because it really DOES look like America’s days as the unique beacon of just “freedom” (the adjective “just” was ESSENTIAL to the original concept of liberty- NOT libertine”ism, which is kinda/sorta what we have today for the elite immorally “libertine” ruling class(es)). Personally, I’m grateful for the contributions in this discussion and feel unqualified to add much more than my “sense” of where we REALLY went wrong was in the 1960 election of Kennedy (a totally sleezeball family that became the “organizing principle” one way or another for the entire leftist power structure that has built up since that time. Of course, FDR and Wilson before him didn’t help, but there were not these “demographic” coalitions that there are now which make conservatism no longer tenable- the “United American Socialist Union” of every “ethnic” group other than whites and white women, as well!! Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican!! LBJ purposely and deliberately “made” African-Americans into Democrats by giving them welfare programs and all sorts of special entitlements, etc., just as the Democrats are STILL doing now with ILLEGAL immigrants- so it’s over! It’s over!

      The best “solution” is not secession (although I think I would sign a petition for such an action and actually vote for it, but it’s not going to happen) is the “10ther movement”- individual state nullification of federal laws and mandates based on defensible interpretation of the 10th ammendment, in my opinion, but all these “Republicans” without testicles (Boehner, etc.,) do more harm than good in reality, and have done so for 50 years now!! It’s over- the entire world loses- BIG TIME!!!

    • Wil

      Jeremy-interesting that you bring up the Wiemar Republic, as their hyperinflation that paved the way for the takeover of the national socialist (NAZI) party seems to be where we are presently headed.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I disagree Wil. Besides like I said our country has a much stronger Republic and Constitution then the Weimar Republic. I believe we have the means to weather such a storm more effectively then Weimar. And I do not believe the storm is going to be anywhere near that bad.

        • navyjr

          HAD is the operative word here; we haven’t had a republic since 1871, and our Constitution, which was revised at that time, has been utterly shredded since!

    • TML

      Jeremy Leochner says “I believe the founders would have wanted secession to be a last defense against tyranny and a a way to ensure the survival of the Republic.”

      And so it is… that is why secession is an option. Therefore while it of course was not ‘intended’ to fail, it maintained this last resort to peaceful resolution and survival of, not the nation, but freedom and liberty. The founders never intended one to have blind fervor in the form of false patriotism toward the state, but rather, the principles to which it was founded. I believe that’s what Mr. Livingston was referring to is the false sense of patriotism that such ‘pledge’ (which was never part of the original founding) encourages. Patriotism does not mean obedience to the state, as you said “I am loyal to the Flag and Republic.”, patriotism is the effort to resist government abuse of power.

      Jeremy Leochner says “The Civil War was when America could have gone the way of Rome or the Weimar Republic. When anarchy could have come and the nation could have been torn into a series of bickering nations.”

      This is merely conjecture stated as fact. It assumes that several nations would ‘bicker’ into anarchy based on vague references to two historic republics contrasted against the modern age, when in actuality the situation could work out quite nicely. Consider for a moment if Canada were part of the United States and decided to secede. I can presume you would spout the same argument, maybe even saying “what about Alaska? Such a situation could never work!” … when in fact, the situation works really well.

      Jeremy Leochner says “Secession is the wanton break up of the nation. It is no different then a person cutting off one of their limbs. It cannot be conducted peacefully.”

      This is a perceptual falsehood. Short of open rebellion or revolution, secession is the only peaceful means of survival for a Republic in the face of encroaching tyranny of central government. If it cannot be conducted peacefully, then one must put the blame where blame belongs… upon those who would forcibly reject secession, and attempt subjugation of those seeking a path that to them seems most likely to affect the safety and happiness. Comparing peaceful withdraw from a political Union (secession) to cutting off a limb is the mindset that nurtures conflict. If France seceded from the European Union because it isn’t working for them… would it be like cutting off a limb? No. Neither would it be for a State of America.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        1: Our country is not the point where its survival is in question. Our country just went through a massive election where many voters came out to voice their opinion. As I said I am loyal to the flag and Republic. Neither has been threatened. Secession is an extremist tactic and the necessary threat for such a tactic to be viable has not come.

        2: Perhaps yes it is all conjecture. My point is that secession would lead to the break up of the Union. As to your example regarding Canada I would point out there is a vast difference between two countries joining together and several colonies joining together to form one nation.

        3: My view of secession is based on what this country is. Tml you made the example of France leaving the European Union. There is a huge difference. Our country is a nation, not an alliance. It is not made up of several sovereign nations. When the constitution was ratified it was made with the purpose of forming a “more perfect union”. Our country is like an organism. A state seceding would be no different then a person cutting off a limb. The lose of a part weakens the whole. This is not an alliance like the EU. It is one nation. That is not blind devotion to the state. It is my view of The Republic itself. Like I said my loyalty is to the Republic and the Flag. And I believe in my heart of hearts that regardless of the motivation to secede I believe secession would forever hurt the flag and the Republic. So I cannot in good conscience treat it as something peaceful. If our country was ruled by a tyrant and secession was the only option left to preserve the flag and republic then I would support it. However our country has not reached that point. Secession can only work when it is made against a real threat. But secession that is committed prematurely can only lead to disunion. Whether that would lead to anarchy is open to conjecture. But at the end of the day I put my faith in the Republic to protect me from tyranny, not secession.

        • navyjr

          Sir, I took an oath to the Constitution{ which represents our Republic} over 40 years ago; and I stand by that oath today; unfortunately, since the election was a SHAM, on 6 November 2012, our Republic officially DIED! IT was already ON life support, and that was the last chance to save it; but since you don’t believe anything against your savior you won’t believe that election was LITERALLY stolen; the “fix” having been in since September, which Obama gave away in his statement to Medvedev to relay to Putin he’d have more flexibility AFTER the election. There was NO DOUBT in his mind he’d be “re-elected” and the massive fraud that’s been uncovered but won’t be dealt with proves it. My oath compels me to separate from what is NO LONGER a Constitutional Republic but a dictatorship that has NOTHING to do with that Constitution or the Declaration which it guarantees!

      • TML

        Jeremy Leochner says “1: Our country is not the point where its survival is in question. ….”

        Of course, many do actually talk secession out of disfavor of the election results – Obama’s re-election rather than Romney – and I do not subscribe to that sentiment. And while I may agree that our country is not yet to the point of survival to which secession is justified at this time; it is well on its way. But I sense that we have different views on what constitutes the survival of the nation. When I see our foreign policy dominated by imperialism regardless of the party in charge… when I see waning personal liberties and violations of natural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights manifest in grotesque rationalizations such as the NDAA and Patriot Act as a result of those policies… when I see federal government prescribe when to sow and when to reap…. I would argue there is no question that the survival of our country is threatened.

        As a wise man once said, “Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it.”

        Jeremy Leochner says “2: …As to your example regarding Canada I would point out there is a vast difference between two countries joining together and several colonies joining together to form one nation.
        3: …There is a huge difference. Our country is a nation, not an alliance. It is not made up of several sovereign nations. When the constitution was ratified it was made with the purpose of forming a “more perfect union”.”

        I wholeheartedly disagree. The United States of America is a Union of independent sovereign nations, or ‘City States’. Speaking of the ratifications; Rhode Island ratification, first Amendment states: “I. The United States shall guaranty to each state its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States.” Declaration of Independence: “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States” And this is especially true for Texas, which was literally an independent nation state prior to entering the union. While it is of course a unique political union, it is nonetheless a political union of independent sovereign nations, or States that ‘act’ as one nation through the mutually beneficial political union.

        —–

        Jeremy Leochner says “Like I said my loyalty is to the Republic and the Flag.”

        Even if the Republic and the flag for which it stands has become a government of tyranny? Is it really the flag and the republic which you are loyal to, or is it the idealistic principles on which they were originally founded?

        Jeremy Leochner says “And I believe in my heart of hearts that regardless of the motivation to secede I believe secession would forever hurt the flag and the Republic. So I cannot in good conscience treat it as something peaceful.”

        Nay, I’m sure life within the States who remain in the Union would carry on much the same. Can you explain to me how Texas secession would forever hurt the citizens of Washington? How is it that the citizen of New York could rightfully view Texas secession as hostile to them, when secession concerns the local citizens only? As I said, it is this view that such secession is impossible to be carried out peacefully which nurtures conflict.

        Jeremy Leochner says “But at the end of the day I put my faith in the Republic to protect me from tyranny, not secession.”

        Which is to assume that the seceding State would not be a Republic?

        Jeremy Leochner says “But secession that is committed prematurely can only lead to disunion.”

        “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.” – Thomas Jefferson

      • Jeremy Leochner

        TML I wish to answer point by point:

        1: My issue is the idea of our nations survival being in danger in the future still seems like a slippery slope argument to me. And whatever your views on secession I feel it needs to be considered carefully and the evidence understood first. The acts you mentioned can be repealed and or amended. There are still none secession avenues open.

        2: TML in your quote from the declaration the beginning of the statement was “That these United Colonies”. They were speaking in terms of a united front not as a series of individual states acting on their own. And after the revolution the original framework the articles of confederation proved unable to preserve the nation. I feel the nation is more then just the sum of its parts. It is a whole unto itself.

        3: This may sound stupid but I do not equate the government with the Republic. Perhaps I can best support that statement by saying you are right that I am more loyal to “the idealistic principles on which they were originally founded”. That is where my loyalty lies. Not to the government but to the ideals. I stand by the government so long as I believe its actions are what is best for those ideals. When the government is not I oppose them.

        4: I believe the lose of some will hurt the all. Just look at the imagery on the dollar bill. You will countless examples of the strength of unity. If we lose one all are affected. I know I sound like an after school special but the truth is that we are all in this together and as Ben Franklin said “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”. And because I believe in this I believe that secession when it is not necessary is itself what nurtures conflict, not the misperception of secession.

        5: I believe secession to mean the end of the Republic. If secession takes place when the Republic is not in danger as I believe is the case now I believe it will destroy the Republic regardless of what the seceding states elect to be.

        6: I do not believe Jefferson meant secession when the country is not ruled by a tyrant. And I would not consider it to be the same as ” not to be exercised at all” to oppose secession when I do not believe it is necessary.

        • Carl

          I keep reading that secession will ruin or destroy our republic. There have been several secessions since the beginning of the 20th century. The ones I can think of is Sweden leaving Norway, Singapore leaving Malaysia, the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Can someone please tell me where in any of these cases that the breakup of these countries or those that seceded were worse off after they seceded than they were before? Also isn’t it ironic that the USA, which also seceded from Great Britain, in every case supported those that seceded? Yet we talk as if secession will cause this supposed great nation to fall apart. I have news for everyone. This nation is going to fall apart whether states secede or not. Its just too damn big to survive. What happened when the cruise ship Concordia took on water off the shores of Italy? Did they say, “we need to stay on this great big ship because its too big to sink and we need to be loyal and stay on it”. No, they got off on little boats because smaller boats can maneuver through the rocks much better than a large ship. So I’m really tired of hearing that USA won’t survive if states leave. I will say this much, the states that leave will not only survive but will prosper.

      • TML

        Jeremy Leochner says “1: My issue is the idea of our nations survival being in danger in the future still seems like a slippery slope argument to me. And whatever your views on secession I feel it needs to be considered carefully and the evidence understood first. The acts you mentioned can be repealed and or amended. There are still none secession avenues open.”

        Absolutely, and any projection to future events could be considered a slippery slope, but isn’t a logical fallacy is you can show the casual connection between one policy or taking one action and the series of other policies or actions. This is what I’ve been driving at regarding the historical record of how imperialism, and perpetual wartime conditions, always undermine personal liberty, and how the United States is on this course as both sides of the isle carry virtually identical foreign policies. Along with how such duopoly dominates the political arena. And I agree, and would go further to say, all other avenues will be exhausted before secession would even be accepted by two thirds of citizen representatives of that State.

        Jeremy Leochner says “2: TML in your quote from the declaration the beginning of the statement was “That these United Colonies”. They were speaking in terms of a united front not as a series of individual states acting on their own. And after the revolution the original framework the articles of confederation proved unable to preserve the nation. I feel the nation is more then just the sum of its parts. It is a whole unto itself.”

        They were, in fact, a confederation of sovereign independent states. They ‘were’ “United Colonies”, but became “Free and Independent States”. Many States didn’t even ratify the Articles of Confederation until 1781, five years after the Declaration of Independence. So I disagree with the statement that they were ‘not a series of individual states acting on their own’.

        Jeremy Leochner says “4: I believe the lose of some will hurt the all. Just look at the imagery on the dollar bill. You will countless examples of the strength of unity. If we lose one all are affected. I know I sound like an after school special but the truth is that we are all in this together and as Ben Franklin said “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”. And because I believe in this I believe that secession when it is not necessary is itself what nurtures conflict, not the misperception of secession.”

        Granted… and personally I don’t think it absolutely necessary, yet.

        Jeremy Leochner says “5: I believe secession to mean the end of the Republic. If secession takes place when the Republic is not in danger as I believe is the case now I believe it will destroy the Republic regardless of what the seceding states elect to be.”

        I disagree. Without a casual connection between proposed events, this in itself is a slippery slope. What do you mean when you say you think it would “destroy” the Republic? I guess it comes down to optimism verse pessimism on that issue.

        Jeremy Leochner says “6: I do not believe Jefferson meant secession when the country is not ruled by a tyrant. And I would not consider it to be the same as ” not to be exercised at all” to oppose secession when I do not believe it is necessary.”

        It was meant to convey that even though I agree that secession is not yet necessary, and that many tools and avenues can still be used; I don’t believe secession, even if not necessary, is anything to ‘get up in arms’ about, or think it would destroy the country because it isn’t necessary from the standpoint of outsiders. Obviously, if secession occurred, it would be considered necessary to the people of that, and that’s all that should matter.

        As for Jefferson’s direct mention of secession:

        “…if there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change it’s republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.”

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I apologize if I get emotional about this issue TML. I guess for me I believe secession is something “to ‘get up in arms’ about”. The reason is I believe secession is basically a person or state deciding to go it alone or at the very least as a portion of the country rather then as a country. I see secession as the the break up of the country and whether it is peaceful or not I disagree with it. Because it is a form of change and I believe that it is a radical change if it results in the permanent break up of the country. That is why I get so testy when I hear about it. I will grant that President Bush, Obama and others in recent years have made decisions and implemented policies that violate our nations principles. However I still see secession as something that is far too extreme, even if it is conducted peacefully, solution for the issues we face. I believe that the issues while complex and at times overwhelming and disheartening have not reached the level or are anywhere near the level where the break up of the country is necessary in order to protect the people from tyranny. I do not wish to insult the founders who had great respect for dissent against those with power. I myself hold such ideals in great esteem. I hope to always be intelligent and foresighted enough to hold those in power accountable for their actions. And I hope that should the legislative and judicial protections our constitution and declaration provide us ever be taken away I will have the courage to recognize it and support what must be done. However until that day comes my faith remains with the Republic. I will always be loyal to the principles of the declaration and constitution and I will only support our government so long as I in my limited wisdom believe they are strengthening our republic. At the end of the day my view of secession in regards to the present situation as I see it can be best summed up by Abraham Lincoln when while speaking of our country and its republic he said “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” In our present state of affairs I believe secession whether peaceful or violent will be suicide for our republic. I apologize if I offend you and I am sorry if I suggested you were one of those advocating for secession now. I never meant to imply that at all.

        • navyjr

          So I’m guessing that when Ahmadinejad drops his nuke on your head from his rented Venezuela launch site, THEN maybe you’ll notice that our “leadership” has become the “enemy, domestic” against whom many of us took our oaths to defend the Constitution?

    • Joan

      Well said Jeremy — some people just don’t get it, do they?

    • BERNADINE

      i BELIEVE WE ARE AT THE CROSS ROAD OF LOSING OUR FREEDOMUNDRE GOD.
      OBAMA IS A COLSITED MUSLIUM. HE IS NOT VETTED TO BE PRESIDENT. THE ELECTION WAS RIGGED THE FIRST TIME AND IT WAS RIGGED THIS TIME. THE WORSE PART IS YET TO COME. A MAN AS PRESIDENT THE PEOPLE IN OFFICE LIE FOR. IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR AMERICA. AND THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE SO IMMOREL AND SEX ,KILLING OF BABYS,AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS. I AM A WOMEN I WANT FREEDOMS FOR MY CHILDREN GRANDCHILDREN AND MY GREAT GRANDCHILDREN THAT BY GREAT GRAND DADS AND UNCLES
      FOUGHT AND DIED FOR IN THE WAR TO FREE THE SLAVES. YES WHITES DIED TO FREE THE SLAVE. LOOK WHAT HALF WHITE AND HALF BLACK WITH BLACK PREACHERS ARE DOING TO INSLAVE THEM AGAIN. AND THEY VOTE FOR SLAVERY.
      NOTHING IS FREE YOU HAVE TO FIGHT THE EVIL TO BE FREE. mUSLIUM RELIGION IS
      DICTATORS AT THIER WORST THEY MAKE THIER SON’S ANDAUGHTERS KILL,FOR
      MALLHA. IS THAT A LOVING GOD OF PEACE. I KNOW IT IS NOT GOOD.GOD BLESS

  • Tubb

    I grew up saying the pledge, i meant it then, i mean it now. What you see happening is the true value of freedom, all American Citizens are given that right by the blood shed from our founding fathers.

    • http://google big T-little roy

      Mr. Tubb, yes, all wars and battles, tends to be toward our regions of brains(cerebral, cortex, frontal lobes, you tell me!)? we are classic scrapers, although intellect has come our way, how to process it, is another manor or manner! the insight or after sight of the history of our country always looms! read john jakes! it’s a trilogy but gives historic(not precise) accounts of…just read! it’s good!

      • http://google big T-little roy

        Mr: Tubb,, you are on my side! I got the wrong person to speak! all i want, is my country! ex navy! believe in our country! john jakes trilogy, is worth reading!

    • Joe Hammond

      Would African-Americans and Native-Americans share the same view as one group was enslaved and the other group was lied to and hunted down for their land…..

  • Corkey

    The Civil War was a total WASTE of lives and resources as was every war with the exception of the Revolutionary War which was forced upon us.

  • Wayne

    Let’s remember That at the end of the day we are all Americans and we stand united against all enemies foreign & domestic. Civil War was a long time ago and there enough blame to go around on both sides.

  • ImListening

    The Country was started from Individual States. For them to separate, to reform a more perfect Union isn’t a bad idea, considering the amount of political corruption. Once the states have their own problems resolved, it’s not inconceivable to see them coming back together again. Or to still have a Pact of Allegiance to one another. There’s going to be pro’s and con’s to any resolution. The thing it is doing, it’s showing the present Government isn’t representative of the people the way it thinks it is. To go with the corruption, greed there is also a huge case of arrogance to go with it.

    “We the People” aren’t all buying into the Socialistic approach of Change.

    • sandman4X4

      Very well said! and true!

    • Flashy

      “it’s showing the present Government isn’t representative of the people the way it thinks it is.” …

      in that you are correct. It’s showing that less than 1% of those having access to the internet want to destroy this nation. more telling is the Mandate given to the President this election…THAT is the reflection of the People. A “petition” signed by a bunch of wackjobs who number less than a decent sized city in number do not show anything but that they are a bunch of wackjobs who number less than a decent sized city in number.

      • An Old Seabee

        Just exactly what is this MANDATE? 50% does NOT a mandate make.

      • brabbie2002

        Flashy – I hate to tell you this, but the corruption of the government, the illegal votes, and people voting for the color of a man’s skin put your hero in charge. It was not the voice of the people. Check out which states voted him back in and check their welfare records. You will see states on the verge of bankruptcy from the liberal’s giveaway programs. Plus they all have large electoral college numbers. We in the center that raise the food you eat feel that if you want to eat – you work. Check out the red states and get back to me. If states want to secede, they have the right! If you don’t want them to secede because you don’t want to lose the tax base for liberal programs, think of ways to bridge the very large and growing gap between the workers and the takers instead of spotting how they are a fringe element. They are not a fringe element. They are voicing their disgust with the corruption of government! I hope they succeed. And I believe it will be – Our state, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for ALL!

      • http://google big T-little roy

        brabbie said it all! Flashy with no spark!

    • rb

      If “we the people” aren’t buying the hope and change then why did 8 million registered “we the peoples” stay home election night to let this happen?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Laziness in all its forms and that whatever happens to this country it supposedly won’t effect them.

    • LITTLE JOHN

      That was very well said and glad you said it….. President Obama is pushing to far from our Constitution, (which it appears he does not believe in) the oath of office to him was just words to get to what he wants to do… the words are more than words to the people who love this country.. President Obama has his own agenda and it is not to the best for the United States of America… the other half of the United States citizens are seeing what is coming…. a weak United States of America…. Obama is trying very hard to give up our Soveignty to the United Nations.. giving up our freedoms…. not taking care of our country, all he has to do is read and follow our Constitution and Bill Of Rights,, that is his problem he does not believe in them…. he spoke the words, but does not believe…. it has to do with his upbring…. who taught him his belief system…. look who he has surrounded himself with anit american all through out his administration, why is it no one sees this, or do not care.

      • Mamamia

        Sounds like you watched the movie about Obama 2016.

  • roger gunderson

    Over display of patriotism is only an attention getter.

  • sesame

    Why “the War of Northern Aggression”. The first shots were fired by the South. Why not the War of Southern Rebellion? Many in the South still honor the term “Johnny Reb”.

    • Flashy

      Sesame..it’s the way of those who regret that the Union was not destroyed and who harbor resentment that they … quite correctly … brought Civil War to this nation. it is the Civil War…any other name for it displays nothing short of insult to this Nation.

      (It’s also completely false as the South took the steps to secede, the South who fired the first shot, and the South who has tried to maintain social caste systems even up through this day. )

      • Flashy

        Small correction–> ” resentment that they have been branded and recognized that they sinned and … quite correctly labelled and recognized as the “bad guys” … brought Civil War to this nation

      • scott casteel

        The ‘South’ fired in defense of offensive posturing by an adversary. Also, the North invaded the South. There would’nt have been a war if Northern politicians hadnt clamored for the invasion. The first volleys would have disolved into a stalemate of politics if it had’nt been for the invasion.
        What would happen today if say Texas and LA, tries to succeed? Would the North invade? How will they succeed if not allowed? Quit send’n their tax checks?

      • lady kroft

        SCOTT…suceed??? Twice is not a typo. Hooked on phonics, are ya?

      • Wil

        It is called ‘the war of northern aggression’ due to Lincoln’s unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab, which was all about Federal control.That is what led to the civil war. And to think,now we have Obama comparing himself to Lincoln. Hmm…

      • TML

        You and Sesame should do more studying from an objective standpoint. The South repeatedly made concession to compensate the Union for the fort which sat in the middle of Charleston Harbor, in the face of deception and utter refusals by Lincoln to withdraw from the fort. The South repeatedly warned that any attempt to resupply the fort would be seen as an act of war. At the same time the soldiers there were supplied fresh food daily from Charleston. Lincoln, despite this, intentionally provoked the first shot by sending several ships loaded with over a thousand troops claiming that they were to resupply the ‘starving’ soldiers there with only “bread”. Having learned this, the bombardment began. So rather than make peaceful resolution with the South, Lincoln intentionally provoked the first shot… a bombardment I might add that result in NO deaths, and NO injuries.

        Also take note that several other Border States, including Virginia, seceded as a result, because they knew the truth of this. In addition, it was then the North who invaded the South, and most of the war took place on Southern land. In the general populace of the South, the North was indeed the aggressors for refusing peaceful resolution, provoking war, followed by unbridled invasion which targeted even innocent women and children. When a captive Confederate Soldier was asked, “Why are you fighting?” he replied… “Because you’re down here.”. Northern Aggression? Without a doubt.

    • John Hasse

      It was the ‘War of Northern Aggression’ because the South wanted freedom and to be left alone, and the north wanted control and the power to tax (which is the power to destroy)

      • Flashy

        Sure john….sure.

      • Patriot

        John, you are correct. The fight was about cheap labor and economic policy, it had nothing to do with slavery. We are fighting the same fight today, sadly!

        • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

          That’s a bunch of crap. Would the south have ended slavery if they had won?

      • eddie47d

        I don’t think the South gave a tinkers damn about freedom or individual rights.History Has proven that out. The North was also guilty in taxing Southern businesses unfairly. Our Civil War was a waste of humanity brought to us by stubborn politicians and false patriotism.

      • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

        John, would the south have freed the slaves if they had won?

        • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

          Dear timothywilliamson,

          You write: “John, would the south have freed the slaves if they had won?” Yes.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

          • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

            Bob, that is not correct.

            In the constitution of the confederacy, a clause was included which said, “Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed”

            So no, they would not, nor could they legally outlaw slavery – a prohibition to that affect was part of the constitution of the confederacy. o such law could even be presented in the congress of the confederacy – it was unconstitutional to do so.

            When the framers of the confederacy wrote their constitution, they kept most of the US constitution, but added that BIg clause.

            This was a war over states rights alright – the primary right being the one to own another human being.

          • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

            Dear timothywilliamson,

            You write: “In the constitution of the confederacy, a clause was included which said, ‘Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.’” Irrelevant. No law was needed. Black slavery was dying throughout the civilized world. It would have died in the Confederacy as well.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

            Bob, how long would they have waited to be free? How long would it have taken the economic engine of the south to replace slave labor with machines?

            For that clause to be in the confederate constitution, when much of the rest of that constitution was ‘copied’ from the US constitution, says that slavery was a primary and principle concern for the south. It was an economic issue. They would not have changed with the times, but would have held onto the least costly means of production – as any good business would do even now. A transition away from slave labor to more costly free labor and mechanization would not have occurred anytime soon. It’s doubtful that the south, our south, would have changed at all for a very long time. But, that is of course, my opinion since there is no way to prove or disprove such an assertion.

          • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

            Dear timothywilliamson,

            You write: “Bob, how long would they have waited to be free? How long would it have taken the economic engine of the south to replace slave labor with machines?” That I do not know. My guess is it would not have been many years.

            You write: ” It’s doubtful that the south, our south, would have changed at all for a very long time. But, that is of course, my opinion since there is no way to prove or disprove such an assertion.” You are correct that there is no way to prove or disprove either of our guess.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

      • Seajackets

        Economics played a big part in this ordeal… New Orleans was competing strongly with New York as a major PORT City… Another point when reflecting back is that major military advances were made in the the 4 years. We were entering WWI in 50 short years afterwards. We were more ready to fight then, in part to the 1860′s…

      • Flashy

        timothywilliamson,

        You write: “John, would the south have freed the slaves if they had won?”

        probably in a few decades along the lines of how the Tsar freed the serfs in 1861 or South African Boers placed apartheid as the caste system in the late 19th century

      • Jeremy Leochner

        One problem John. When the south seceded no attacks on their freedom had been made. They seceded based on what they thought was going to happen, not what actually was.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “timothywilliamson,”

        I AGREE. THE CONFEDERACY WOULD ONLY HAVE FREED THE SLAVES AFTER CAUCASIANS MALES NO LONGER CONSIDERED THEIR ECONOMIC SURVIVAL TO BE TIED TO THE PLANTATION. JOBS IN THE COAL INDUSTRY, RAILROADS, ETC. WOULD HAVE LURED CAUCASIAN MALES AWAY.

        IF THE CONFEDERACY HAD WON, I THINK SLAVERY WOULD HAVE ENDED AROUND THE TIME OF Queen Victoria of England’s DEATH – CIRCA 1900. VICTORIAN ENGLAND DID HAVE A SOCIAL IMPACT ON THE UNITED STATES. WHEN VICTORIAN VALUES WERE NO LONGER CHERISHED IN AMERICA, THIS NATION WOULD HAVE HAD A PROBLEM TRYING TO PSYCHOLOGICALLY JUSTIFY SLAVERY.

    • Gordon

      Doesn’t anybody have the awareness that 3 days BEFORE the sessession vote in Maryland, (look it up) LINCOLN had the politicians arrested and seized their property so that DC would not be surrounded in a southern state? (Only 2% voted for Lincoln) LINCOLN was our first communist president, suspended the Consitution, arrested and incarcerated citizens, confiscated their property, etc. to prevent the sessession. Sure the Confederates were exercising their 10th amendment rights against taxation without representation and the funneling of their money to the northern bureaucrats, and that is what the war was really about. LINCOLN was also an advocate of Liberia (look it up). Revisionist history =The first actions by socialists.

      • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

        Gordon, let me ask you the same question I’ve asked of others, “Would the south have freed the slaves if they had won the war?”

      • Steve E

        I would think that the South would have eventually gotten rid of slavery. Most people in the South were not slave holders and there were contentions among white laborers because slavery was taking work from white wage earners.

      • Robert Myles

        Yes Liberia was bought and created by the north for the reparation of bllacks who no longer wished to live here after enduring many years of slavery. Thug you must lso note that the blacks sent here in slave ships were hunted down and captured to be sold to dutch traders as slaves. Lincoln was indeed a power grabber and the first of many Demorat’s that fought for a more centralized and federally controlled nation, taking more powers away from the individual states. The civil war was started over states rights, one of which is the right to secede and break free of the real or felt injustices of the central federal government. Lincoln wanted big central government which is the theme of communism. The north won and therefore got to write history in it’s image. Those that study history find the truth hidden away and see both it’s fallacies and the causes. Slavery was included after the gettyburg battle in the gettysburg address foght for there by northern abolishonists. slavery would have died off with in 10 to 20 yrs by its sheer economic pressure on the plantation owners. The abolishonist’s felt the slaves actually had better living and workng conditions than many people in the north in factories.

      • Gordon

        Timothy= red herring= slavery had nothing to do with Lincoln suspending the Constitution.

      • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

        Gordan, let me try this again. Answer the question. It’s no ‘red herring’. It’s answer will reveal exactly how much you really know of southern, my southern, history, and not the attempt by some to color coat the truth to make themselves and others feel better.

        Would the south have freed the slavey after the Civil War?

    • TML

      It is more correctly called the War Between the States… since ‘Civil’ war actually refers to a war between the citizens of the same country.

  • sandman4X4

    All I can say, with what is going on today in America, is our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves, expecialy Lincoln! to be even said in the same sentence as obama, and to have him compaired to obama is just wrong, the only way to cambine the two in one sentence is : there is a complete difference between Pres. Lincoln and pres. obama! one is a true Constitutionalist, the other a socialist!

    • GreyTigerTX

      Founding father … Lincoln???

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear sandman4X4,

      You write: “there is a complete difference between Pres. Lincoln and pres. obama! one is a true Constitutionalist, the other a socialist!” Please elaborate: Which is the Constitutionalist?

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Gordon

        AMEN BOB

      • http://wtciweb.com Justine

        Bob that is a cheap shot……Socialism didn’t really come about until after the 1860s when Karl Marx (backed by a British capitalist) wrote his communist manifesto. Free Market was created by the British..in 1758 when eventually the colonies fought against the Brits for undermining the colonies manufacturing. In other words we fought a revolution against free market (I guess that makes our founding fathers commies) Today the right wants to privatized roads, bridges, going to mars,…….they can do it now that free market has sent jobs to foreign countries causing the financials to send stocks through the roof…the bankers invest in paper…….free market causes the economy to become totally out of whack……..now the top twenty percent make the money (in derivatives) while the rest of us are losing our jobs. It all started with free market economics brought back by Greenspan and his ilk…..jobs went all over the world…….it is no wonder that we don’t have social security with jobs disappearing. Govt should be in infrastructure….O was right … companies can’t develop without water, and power………we need even better power resources that Kennedy planned to generate before he was killed………instead money went to war……..and to aid the great industrial military complex…..Fortunately under Kennedy’s bill to go to the moon we kept our economy going. Now…..we need even more powerful technology….and we’ll get it for our future if we go and try to colonize Mars….but sadly the AMerican people don’t have an imagination about the future….when we are arguing about the past….which by the way….Lincoln got the transcontinental railsystem going and the American economy took off………and that was with a war going…..he did it with greenbacks because the NY bankers were going to charge him 24 percent interest……Lincoln had it rough……a nation divided cannot stand…..and he fought for that. I find the conservatives disgusting human beings for degrading the greatest president of the 19th Century. FDR was the greatest of the the 20th…..it was the democrats who came after him that were soooo horrible……we are an over regulated country………..Now banking should be regulated……everything went downhill when Glass STeagall was gotten rid of…….no separation of investment vs commercial banking….One of the first bills that FDR signed…………the movie It is a Wonderful Life explains what Glass Steagal did……….

        • navyjr

          Socialism has been around a LONG time; it helped bring down Rome among others! It wasn’t CALLED that, ’til Marx, but the substance of it has been around a LONG time, and it has ALWAYS failed!

      • nickkin

        Bob, i don’t think we have to worry about that…..there will be a new slavery starting….the right, corporate fat-cats everything that is good for America. Obama is saying,what goes around, comes around” ! Didn’t he preach during campaigning , “VOTE FOR REVENGE”.?

  • http://google big T-little roy

    geez, did not obama have his hand on the left?

    • http://google big T-little roy

      i mean, left hand on the right side opposite from the heart? 57 states did vote for this communist! we will suffer! i wish all the best!

      • Wumingren

        No, Obama (phtooie!) did not place the wrong hand on his chest. That was a photoshopped image, a reversal of the image betrayed by the reversal of the soldiers’ uniforms in the background. It bothers me that people try so hard to defame Obama with lies, when the truth of Obama is sufficient to defame him. Use the truth only and do not add any false allegations, because when the false parts are identified, all the truth is assumed to be false right along with the rest of the garbage. Please, just stick to the facts, nothing but the facts.

      • http://google big T-little roy

        uh! well televised accounts were wrong! there were no deaths in benghazi! we have across the board a president who has no knowledge of anything? wow, i feel safe and secure that our elected leaders are sooo in control! but, i appreciate your ultimate wisdom! thank you for setting me straight!

      • Wumingren

        Well, I was wrong to assume you were talking about the photo that went around showing Obama (pftooie!) standing there with his left hand over the right side of his chest. You refer to a televised incident. I have not seen or heard of such. Can you please provide details, so I can search for that video. I have thus far been unable to locate it. Thanks. P.S. The rest of my statement stands.

        • navyjr

          It did happen; I saw that video too; it was a YouTube, I think. However, you probably won’t find it now; virtually everything that shows O in a negative light, and/or proves he’s NOT what he claims in any way, has been expunged.

  • Flashy

    Wow…that’s the first thought. lose an election whereby a majority of Americans soundly reject the extremist positions…and all of a sudden petitions for unconstitutional secession are circulated amongst the small rabble of extremists and now we have questions about the Pledge of Allegiance and whether this nation should endure.

    This from folks who, a few weeks ago, were loudly proclaiming themselves to be “patriots”. Who had once proclaimed pride in the US military forces. Who had insisted that when one of their own had somehow won an election that it was the “will” of the voters voting for that office seeker.

    We had an election where the majority of the People voting aid ‘you are wrong and we reject your demands.” And y’all want to leave the Union. Fine…leave. Formally renounce your citizenship and leave. You have not the right to break up the Union simply because the electorate thinks you’re all nutcases…

    • An Old Seabee

      The following is a quote from a real president:
      “The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”

      “Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star”, 149
      May 7, 1918

      PS: Session is NOT unconstitutional.

      • eddie47d

        That was relevant yet when has anyone praised Obama when he did anything right. The constant barrage of negativity only emboldens his supporters and makes the right a bunch of hypocritical fools. A prime example is that Conservatives praise Reagan whether he did good or made major mistakes. Yet Obama is tarred and feathered under all circumstances. These quotes Old Seabee are meaningless unless they are practiced by each side.

      • Flashy

        Session may be within the Constitution…but secession certainly is. A state joins, it is in perpetuity or until the state AND the nation decides to kick it out.

        Go ahead, find in the Constitution where a state has any right to secede. (i suggest you read the SCOTUS decision first)

      • Gordon

        WAKE UP There’s another one……. Placing the SCOTUS above the Constitution itself.

        They are suppose to enforce it, not define it or interpret it.

      • Flashy

        Enforce the Constitution? the SCOTUS? Errrr…and what Constitution and SCOTUS are you referring to? Please…read Marbury v Madison..

      • Gordon

        FLASHY There ya go. Trying to put case law above the actual Constitution. You just don’t get it, do ya? “You’re never gonna get it. The cows could tape something by now.”

  • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

    Bob, not indivisible???? Ok. Let’s look at that from two perspectives: legally and from George Washington.

    Legally – - -

    I’ve posted the elsewhere tonight in the hope that reason prevails throughout the land.

    Here’s why such petitions are a waste of time…….

    Here are multiple sources showing that secession is unconstitutional. There are many many more.

    1) Constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar argues that the permanence of the United States changed significantly when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the adoption of the United States Constitution. This action “signaled its decisive break with the Articles’ regime of state sovereignty.” By creating a constitution instead of some other type of written document, it was made clear that the United States was:
    Not a “league”, however firm; not a “confederacy” or a “confederation”; not a compact among “sovereign’ states” — all these high profile and legally freighted words from the Articles were conspicuously absent from the Preamble and every other operative part of the Constitution. The new t
    ext proposed a fundamentally different legal framework.
    Patrick Henry represented a strong voice for the Anti-Federalists who opposed adoption of the Constitution. Questioning the nature of the new political organization being proposed, Henry asked:
    The fate … of America may depend on this. … Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. …
    The Federalists would point out that Henry exaggerated the extent that a consolidated government was being created and acknowledged that states would continue to serve an important function even though sovereignty had been transferred to the American people as a whole. However, on the issue of whether states retained a right of unilateral secession from the United States, the Federalists made it clear that no such right would exist under the Constitution.

    2) James Madison, often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution”, spoke out against secession as a constitutional right. In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification, Madison discussed “revolution” versus “secession”:
    I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes “nullification” and must hasten the abandonment of “Secession.” But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.

    3) Andrew Jackson, for all his failings, said his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, “But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.”

    4) James Buchanan said this, “In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.”

    5) Texas v. White[53] was argued before the United States Supreme Court during the December 1868 term. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase read the Court’s decision, on April 15, 1869. Australian Professors Peter Radan and Aleksandar Pavkovic write:
    Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of “an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.” In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States.

    6) In 1877, the Williams v. Bruffy decision was rendered, pertaining to civil war debts. The Court wrote regarding acts establishing an independent government that “The validity of its acts, both against the parent state and the citizens or subjects thereof, depends entirely upon its ultimate success; if it fail to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it; if it succeed and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation.”
    Historian Kenneth Stampp notes that a historical case against secession had been made that argued that “the Union is older than the states” and that “the provision for a perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation” was carried over into the Constitution by the “reminder that the preamble to the new Constitution gives us one of its purposes the formation of ‘a more perfect Union.” Concerning the White decision Stampp wrote:
    In 1869, when the Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, finally rejected as untenable the case for a constitutional right of secession, it stressed this historical argument. The Union, the Court said, “never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation.” Rather, “It began among the Colonies. …It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation.”

    ***********************************************

    From George Washington – - – - – in his farewell address

    “In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. …….

    “To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”

    It is indivisible. Those who suggest otherwise do not know the intent of the founders in replacing the articles of confederation with a constitution forming a government. The transition from the Art. of Conf. to the constitution signals a dramatic change from an association of sovereign states to a union of states bound together indivisibly as a sovereign nation. In signing the constitution, each state and the people in those states gave up to the new sovereign national government their separate state sovereignty indefinitely. Thus by constitutional law and by the words of our most prominent founding father, secession is a myth.

    • eddie47d

      Thank You Timothy for some historical perspective. Even the 13 colonies had major differences yet they agreed it was” better to hang together than to hang separately”

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear timothywilliamson,

      You write: “Here’s why such petitions are a waste of time.” I agree they are a waste of time. As the Federal Government does not Constitutionally control whether a State remains part of the Union—as this is not one of the 17 enumerated powers granted the Federal government in the document—the States retain the right to decide whether the compact agreed to remains in their best interest.

      You write: “Here are multiple sources showing that secession is unconstitutional.” You have written much and said nothing. Akhil Reed Amar, Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan and subsequent Supreme Court cases are irrelevant to the intent of the Founders.

      Article VII states plainly: The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.

      Article V requires all amendments to be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof.

      The delegates to the convention voted by State, not by individuals. It is a compact among the States. At the Philadelphia Convention Gouverneur Morris said he “came here to form a compact for the good of America.” He was ready to do so with all the states. He hoped they would all join. If not, he was ready to “join with any states that would.” But as the compact is voluntary, “it is vain for the Eastern States to insist on what the Southern States would never agree to…”

      Madison labeled the “Federal Union as analogous, not to social compacts among individual men, but to the conventions among individual states.” This meant that should one party “breach… any one article… all the other parties are at liberty to consider the whole convention dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair the breach.” Compacts among individuals, Madison insisted, could be dissolved by a breach of the compact, unless “the contrary is implied in the compact itself, and particularly by the law of it which gives an indefinite authority to the majority to bind the whole, in all cases.” –“The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution” by Brion McClanahan

      Long after the ratification of the Constitution, Madison said, “Our governmental system is established by a compact, not between the Government of the United States and the State governments, but between the States as sovereign communities, stipulating each with the other a surrender of certain portions of their respective authorities to be exercised by a common government, and a reservation, for their own exercise, of all their other authorities.”

      The Constitution, unlike the Articles of Confederation, does not contain the word “perpetual.” No compact has ever, under English law, been assumed as perpetual and contracts are often dissolved even if there is a time frame stipulated. What would be sufficient to constitute a breach and a decision ot rescind or annul it? That would be left to the State seeking remedy. According to the Report on the Virginia Resolution of 1798, the offensive act would be a “deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of power not granted in the compact.”

      The compact theory was prevalent through the early portion of the 19th Century. New England States made this argument as they discussed secession in response to the shipping embargo of 1814.

      The original preamble read: “We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of ourselves and our posterity.” The Committee of Style and Arrangement, unsure whether all the States would ratify it, replaced the words with “We the people of the United States.” It was an effort by the committee to avoid embarrassment, not change the meaning.

      The Virginia resolution on ratification included this clause: “that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whensoever the same shall be perverted to t heir injury or oppression.”

      The New resolution on ratification included this clause: “That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.”

      In a letter to N.P. Trist, Madison wrote: “The [States], owe fidelity to it (the Constitution), till released by consent (that’s one good way), or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.”

      Thomas Jefferson wrote, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation… to a continuance in union… I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

      In 1848, the sainted Lincoln even recognized the right of secession. He said, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much territory as they inhabit.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Gordon

        AMEN BOB.

        Hasn’t this revisionist history really warped the understanding of what our Nation is?

        Good work BOB.

        • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

          Since when is it revisionist to quote directly from the mouths of our founding fathers?

      • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

        So Bob, what your very well written response proves is that even among the founding fathers, there was disagreement. However, the preponderance of statements from those men show that it was to be indivisible and perpetual – whether they wnated it or not.

        Patrick Henry acknowledged that this new constitution went beyond the confederation in that it created a nation, and that this was not a compact between sovereingn states, but the creation of a new central government to whom the states had given some of their sovereignty. The understanding at the time was that such an acceptance of the constitution was not reversible by secession.

        George Washington said essentially that we and the states have agreed to give to the federal government the repsonsibility to manage the enitre country, and that this was a government. Thus it is not a compact or treaty or confederation of states, but a sovereign nation.

        And, as the constitution clearly states, and as Patrick Henry worried, this is a government of ‘We, the People’, not we the states.

        Of course, the people hold the power through the election process, at least as the amendments to the constitution now specify. They can petition to government, but can not legally seek secession without revolution.

        So, if you’re suggesting revolution, that then becomes treasonous. Why? Because just as has been stated since our founding – the USA is a sovereign nation – and because even supreme court rulings have re-enforced the supremacy of the USA over the states.

        • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

          Dear timothywilliamson,

          You write: “They can petition to government, but can not legally seek secession without revolution.” They can legally seek secession. It’s doubtful the Federal Government would comply. Lincoln saw to that.

          You write: “So, if you’re suggesting revolution, that then becomes treasonous.” Where in this article have I suggested secession? Where have I suggested revolution? I’m merely arguing that the Constitution as ratified by the States and understood by the Founders (even by the nationalistic Hamilton) allowed for secession. Lincoln was the tyrant who unConstitutionally invaded the sovereign Confederacy and caused the death of 750,000-800,000 people with his war of aggression. This article was written to point out the irony in a people who have their whole life recited a pledge that contains the phrase “one nation… indivisible” now seeking to dissolve the Union and ask the question whether they will continue to recite the phrase.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

          • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

            Washington, Hamilton, Henry, Jackson, Buchanan, et al, said otherwise. Secession was not nor is it a ‘right’ inherent in the constitution, but it’s discussion is an ongoing thing ever present in American history – just as you and I are proving again.

            It’s been a good conversation Bob. Thanks!

            You have a great day sir. Friend me on FB at williamsoncontracting, My friends and I enjoy the debate though we do not often agree.

      • Flashy

        Mr. Livingston…please read Texas v. White, 74 US 700 (1869). the issue has been decided. Your opinion is erroneous …

        • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

          Dear Flashy,

          You write: “please read Texas v. White, 74 US 700 (1869). the issue has been decided. Your opinion is erroneous.” That case is irrelevant to the discussion of the Founder’s understanding of the compact. I am never surprised by nationalistic statist judges ruling in favor of centralizing power in the Federal government. It is true now and it was true then. Plus, five of the Justices were Lincoln appointees.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • WILDFIRE

        @timothywilliamson – If your interpretations are correct, and each state has no right to secede from the union as one nation. Then why does States maintain its boundaries or State lines and furthermore maintain their own individual state constitutions and State laws separate and apart from Federal Laws and other State laws. If the Constitution intended to dissolve any rights of an individual State to secede from the Union if it came a time where the Union was no longer in the best interest of the State. Thereby as the States joined the union the boundaries would be dissolved and conjoin to one nation with no boundaries separating one State from the other.

      • Flashy

        Dear Flashy,

        You write: “please read Texas v. White, 74 US 700 (1869). the issue has been decided. Your opinion is erroneous.” That case is irrelevant to the discussion of the Founder’s understanding of the compact. ” <— Mr. Livingston

        Depends upon which of the "Founders' is referred to. There were quite literally hundreds…each having their own views on any given subject.

  • john

    Well people put that obama guy (their master) back in to do one thing destroy America and folks believe it or not he will turn out to be a Hitler in ruling America. I hope we go over the cliff and fall then those that voted hope they have the worst time ever in the next four years I got money back to leave once it all starts falling down it’s coming my family and I will be gone

    • Jimmy the Greek

      John Obama would not make a heir on the rear end of a man like Hitler ! Hitler loved his country and wanted the best for his people and the Aryan race .obama is a puppet of the zionist new world order as was bush a d mitt .and obama does not even have a race he is a mutt .

      • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

        Jimmy, this may come as a suprise, but there is only one race….the human race. It’s scientific fact that every human on earth originated from the plains of east Africa.

        Hitler was an idiot with a charismatic mouth who used fear, death and racial purity as a tool to get him into power. To praise such a wrongheaded megalomaniac is beyond crass.

      • Jimmy the Greek

        Speak for your self ! Greeks are not of the apes .

      • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

        Jimmy, do you not accept science? We are all from the very same source – the plains of east africa. That makes all of us orginially, africans, and we are many thousands of generations away from our hominid ancesters – apes would be a very distant cousin.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “timothywilliamson,”

        I WAS WITH YOU IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH “Bob Livingston” ON THE CONFEDERACY AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

        YET, YOU DEMONSTRATED YOUR DETACHMENT FROM REALITY WITH YOUR [sic], ” … there is only one race … the human race … ” LINE.

        WANTING PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES – AND, DIFFERENT PHYSICAL APPEARANCES – TO “GET ALONG” DOES NOT DIMINISH THE IMPORTANCE OF WHY THOSE PHYSICAL APPEARANCES CREATE MISUNDERSTANDING AND CHAOS. IF AMERICANS OF DIFFERENT RACES WANT TO “GET ALONG,” OUR DIFFERENCES, AS INDIVIDUAL GROUPS, MUST BE “PLACED ON THE TABLE, FIRST” – THEN, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

  • http://google big T-little roy

    tounge-in-cheek, but you get the point! rats and mice desert a sinking ship! we are on the US Titanic! look at our investments, stock, and what our country has become! all those naysayers(hunky dory), don’t have a clue! the beatles had written back in the time get back to the ussr, now we are the United States Socialist Republic! Any of you idiots can debate these guys;
    who know more than i!

  • Bob

    “The wicked shall be turned into Hell: and all nations that forget God” -Psalm 9:17

    The next Prophesied event now shaping up is The Ten Toes, of Daniel 2:40-. Called by my Lord “The Great Tribulation.”

  • ROGER, Irish-Canadian LIBERTARIAN

    ANY Pledge should be to “Life and Liberty” and NOT to any flag, Republic or Democracy, IF we wish to avoid the mistakes of our past. Borders of same should simply be to DEFINE a territory ,within which, people have the RIGHT, NOT the compulsion, to pursue those values FREELY and SECURELY without EXCEPTION of any kind.The Flag should only represent that COMMON goal concept within that same territory.the CONCEPT should be the CENTER ,NOT the Flag or Country.

  • http://constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm John Steck

    Unfortunately Jeremy many people including myself see this nation at a tipping point. The ‘takers’ have over run the ‘makers’ and the downward spiral has begun. There are just not enough that understand the parable about teaching a man to fish instead of just handing out fish. The 2012 election was between Santa Claus and the other guy running against him. Given the blatant and unapologetic disregard of the rule of law and the Constitution from the very top of our nation and the culpability of the media outlets to collude with that totalitarian cancer renders the public with few other options. Despite many who claim the founding system of government we have is no longer relevant and out dated one only needs to re-read the declaration of independence and substitute ‘King George’ with ‘King Obama’ and the missive could be appropriately published today and vilified by the mentally ill among us as some crazy right-wing conspiracy. Speaking further to the problem, it would have to be significantly dumbed down to 2nd grade prose so the majority of the barely educated voting population could have any hope of even understand what it says.

    Yes, I think the founding fathers were extremely brilliant in articulating the duty of the citizenry to dissolve the union in the face of tyranny. Whether a civil war is even possible now with the military capabilities of the US is another story. Peaceful succession would never be allowed. States involved would immediately become the focus of aggressively intense invasion, suppression, and martial law. Imagine the full technological resources and capabilities we see utilized in the Afghan and Irag theaters turned on Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc. …a reality made possible at the end of the last Bush term with the dissolution of the standing order prohibiting the deployment of federal army forces domestically (the original purpose of the national guard to prevent usurpation by a dictator).

    I have always been extremely patriotic with a pathological belief in the people of America to always have the fortitude and wisdom to rise above all obstacles, but I must admit I am now quite disenfranchised. The America I believed in no longer exists, the core beliefs are inconvenient, those pledged to defend and up hold them unrepentant liars, cheats, and thieves. I personally can not bring myself to say the pledge anymore without feeling like a hypocrite. It’s not propaganda exactly, but a unifying tool to to remind people of values to rally around. The problem is that most mumble a semblance of it by rote, barely paying attention or even understanding what they are saying. Some schools now don’t even recite it anymore because it is politically inconvenient to recognize we are ‘under God’ for fear of offending the secular and atheists.

    I weep for the nation we once were. In the shadow of Veteran’s day I am thankful that the ones we barely recognize and take their sacrifices for granted are no longer here to see the blood they spilled now poured down the sewer drain in apathy, laziness, and sloth. The path forward from here is troublesome. The ones who have traded their freedom or security will get neither and ‘I told you so’ a hollow vindication.

    We are the United States of Sodom and Gomorrah now and we will consequently suffer the same wrath. I can’t wait for the new pledge….

    Sincerely, John

    • http://google big T-little roy

      Amen!

    • Vance Miller

      Mr. Steck, I believe you very eloquently and succinctly voiced the thoughts of many in America, myself included. Since I do not possess either your knowledge or eloquence in stating my thoughts I thank you for stating yours as you did. What I can say is this is no longer the country I was proud to formally serve for four years several decades ago. It is a time of mourning for many of us and while it is not in my nature to give up, it is also not in my nature to pretend. The government can take away my money, my property and even my life but it cannot take away my God given ability and duty to distinguish right from wrong and hopefully the courage to stand up for that as long as I live. I hold to the unwavering belief that one day the true Judge from whom all genuine Hope and Change resides will return. Until then I refuse to bend the knee and compromise either my morals or my ethics and instead will cling to my so called, “guns and religion” and gladly face the consequences of that choice with a clear conscience. As I’m sure many who might read this post can easily point out my knowledge and understanding is not perfect. But my God is. I’m confident He can and will make up in the future, what I lack in the present.

      • James Merikan

        Well said, Sir! I am not as eloquent as many who are on this comment list, but I heartily concur with your statement(s).

    • hwc

      Eloquently stated John, and it deserves a big AMEN

    • Jeff Espina

      Very well expressed, Mr. Steck.

    • Gman

      John: if only the founding members of our society (not the Fathers) had only thought to teach all men to fish. And not made our nation a welfare state to subvert the ascension of those people deemed to be less than “people”. Then maybe this idea of wealth redistribution, the teeming numbers of folks on the dole would not be such an outstanding problem for our nation. Blame those who instigated this mess, not the multitude that has resulted from it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/patriotismforall Patriotism ForAll

        Funny thing: The Red states are overwhelmingly the takers and the Blue states shelling out for their free ride. It’s hypocritical. Either get off the national tit, or start voting liberal.

        • navyjr

          I believe you have that backwards on which states are the takers and which the makers.

  • http://yahoo bob

    We are no longer the United States of america..Obama has divided us! just look at the posts all over the internet..You peckerheads can believe what you wish,;bottom line is that you are not a free people and haven’t been for quite some time. The bushes,clintons Obama are all the same whores selling out to the New world order..you were led to think bush is a tyrant and obama is your savior..I have news for you,,,they are the same ..Hillary was photographed coming from a bildenberg meeting and she detestly denies it..Tim Geitner,Bernanke,Colin powell,George bush sr, and Jr,.The late Pres. Ford,Jimmy Carter,Bill clinton,All belong to the NWO….You all are going to find out in the near future the hard way what you have done to your country..It wont be pretty….Now some of you can start calling me names like i expect you to do ..just the same,,you will meet your fate at the hands of these tyrants….your military is being de-moralized..your dollar is being devaluated to a point of no return…Voter fraud is right in your faces but the blame game keeps your eyes shut..You have become ignorants…Your children and grandchildren will be the real victims of your ignorance…I hope they will be proud of your deeds…You have no shame..

    • http://google big T-little roy

      bob, she was under attack from phantom helicopters and snipers! give her a break! lies and deception will override anything of the truth!

    • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

      Secession……myth or constitutional right?

      Throughout the history of the USA there have been those who felt, for a varity of reasons, that their views were not represented, or were at best misrepresented, and who then promoted the idea of secession.
      There were the anti-federalists of Jefferson’s time who sought separation from the Union because they said that the nation’s constitution included no provision for the expansion of the country beyond the original thirteen colonies: an argument brought on when Jefferson violated his own public opposition to enlarging the federal government when he made the Louisianna Purchase.

      There were the concerns by states and leaders over equitable representation because one may have had an economic advantage over another. There was the Whiskey Rebellion over taxation during Washington’s administration which was put down by Alexander Hamilton. And, who can forget the challenges to our nation caused by the issue of slavery from the constitutional period through the Civil War and beyond.

      Though the issue of secession has been discussed from the very beginning, let’s look at how the founding fathers and legal scholars discuss the issue.

      Constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar argues that the permanence of the United States changed significantly when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the adoption of the United States Constitution. This action “signaled its decisive break with the Articles’ regime of state sovereignty.” By creating a constitution instead of some other type of written document, it was made clear that the United States was: Not a “league”, however firm; not a “confederacy” or a “confederation”; not a compact among “sovereign’ states” — all these high profile and legally freighted words from the Articles were conspicuously absent from the Preamble and every other operative part of the Constitution. The new text proposed a fundamentally different legal framework.

      Patrick Henry represented a strong voice for the Anti-Federalists who opposed adoption of the Constitution. Questioning the nature of the new political organization being proposed, Henry asked: “The fate … of America may depend on this. … Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America.”

      The Federalists would point out that Henry exaggerated the extent that a consolidated government was being created and acknowledged that states would continue to serve an important function even though sovereignty had been transferred to the American people as a whole. However, on the issue of whether states retained a right of unilateral secession from the United States, the Federalists made it clear that no such right would exist under the Constitution.

      James Madison, often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution”, spoke out against secession as a constitutional right. In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification, Madison discussed “revolution” versus “secession”: “I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes “nullification” and must hasten the abandonment of “Secession.” But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.”

      Andrew Jackson, for all his failings in understanding economics, said in his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, “But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.”

      James Buchanan said this, “In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.”

      In Texas v. White was argued before the United States Supreme Court during the December 1868 term. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase read the Court’s decision, the court ruled “in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of “an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.” In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States.

      In 1877, the Williams v. Bruffy decision was rendered, pertaining to civil war debts. The Court wrote regarding acts establishing an independent government that “The validity of its acts, both against the parent state and the citizens or subjects thereof, depends entirely upon its ultimate success; if it fail to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it; if it succeed and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation.”

      Historian Kenneth Stampp notes that a historical case against secession had been made that argued that “the Union is older than the states” and that “the provision for a perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation” was carried over into the Constitution by the “reminder that the preamble to the new Constitution gives us one of its purposes the formation of ‘a more perfect Union.”

      Concerning the White decision Stampp wrote: “In 1869, when the Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, finally rejected as untenable the case for a constitutional right of secession, it stressed this historical argument. The Union, the Court said, “never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation.” Rather, “It began among the Colonies. …It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation.

      From George Washington – – – – – in his farewell address “In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

      …….“To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”

      Conclusion

      The USA is indivisible. The transition from the Articles of Confederation to the constitutional republic signals a dramatic change from an association of sovereign states to a union of states bound together indivisibly as a sovereign nation. In signing the constitution, each state and the people in those states gave up to the new sovereign national government their separate state sovereignty indefinitely.

      Thus by constitutional law and by the words of our most prominent founding fathers, secession is a myth.

      • Gordon

        Timothy, don’t you get tired of cutting an pasting all that stuff. I get tired of skipping over it.

        • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

          I post it Gordan because so many want to ignore all the facts – my post shows that all these arguments over secession are non-sense. We’lle talk more when you answer a simple question..Then we will discuss what is really going on in our great country.

          Would the south have freed the slaves if they have won the Civil War?

          Why will you not answer this simpe question?

          • navyjr

            NO ONE can guess “what might have happened” because that isn’t the path history took! So stop asking an impossible to answer question and leave the international policies out of questions that DON’T concern it, if you want sensible responses!

          • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

            Yes we can navy and gordon – - The constitution of the confederacy was basically copied word for word from the US constitution – except for some very dramatic differences.

            From the Confederate Constitution, Aritcle 1, Section 9, line 4 “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

            The Civil War was sold to the broader population, without real ellaboration, as a conflict over states rights. We hear those same arguments today. However, since the leaders of the condeferacy felt it necessary to include a provision in their constitution prohibiting any attempt to free the slaves, and labelling all such attempts as unconstitutional, then this, among many other such statements prior to and during the war, shows that the war was in fact over the issue of slavery.

            For them to put it explicitely in their constitution dispells of claims to the contrary about the root cause of the war. Yes! It was over states rights – the right of the southern states to keep slaves inperpetuity.

            So, to answer the question of whether the south would have freed the slaves, the answer is an unequivocal and very strongly stated – - – NO, not ever. It would have been unconstitutional.

            So with an abosulte YES, the Civil War was over slavery – the right of the south to keep it forever.

          • navyjr

            I suspect the economics of maintaining slavery would have driven it out of practice by the end of that century as the industrial age took over and the gin and other machinery became cheaper than maintaining the slaves in any case, but we can’t say for sure because history took a different path. OUR Constitution once said that members of the BAR couldn’t hold public office too; yet what FILLS our public offices now???

          • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

            My point navy was not so much to discuss what may have happened, – as you say, no one can definitively know what may have been, though I agree it would not have ended at the end of the war if the south had won, but rather to point out that the issue of slavery, as defined as a constitutional right in the south, was very much a significant and even economically vital reason for the war. It was presented as a conflict over states rights, but the southern constitution proves that the most significant right they valued above the others was the right to own slaves.

            It was the cause di jour since it was a topic of heated discussions all the way back into the discussions about the form of the US Constitution. Buchanan discussed it, Jackson violently defended slavery as a god given right. Jefferson hated it as being immoral, but could not free his slaves in his life time over economic and political reasons. And, the framers of the constitution decided to compromise and not include a prohibition against slavery because of the economic power of the south at the time. The founders also knew that the issue of slavery would come back to bite the entire country at some point in the future.

            So slavery was the underlying reason for the Civil War, and the slaves could not have been freed in the south with out a constitutional amendment which would have taken many many years.

          • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

            Oh! And the first Texas Constitution said that the clergy could not serve in any public office.

            And originally, only white male landowners could vote in the early US.

            Things do change. Some change is good. Some is not. But, overall, and over time, it works out for the best.

            Go Navy! Beat Army!

          • navyjr

            Some changes are good, some are not, and it doesn’t always work out for the best. I’ve seen far too many times when that is NOT the case, both in history and in my own personal experience.

    • Gordon

      Obama has divided us?

      Hey fella, we are divided. We have always been divided. We will always be divided.

      By race, color, creed, ethnic background, economically, socially, and geographically. (etc)

      Every group disdanes the other one way or the other.

      “The great American melting pot” espoused in the 50′s? It is a lot like Senator Bulworth said, someday we’ll all be the same color…… but we will never be of like mind. period.

      Without a common spiritual faith under Almighty God, all else is vanity.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Either we are all Individuals or a Collective and if we are a Collective we can be further subdivided by race, economics, education, religions, etc., and that is what has happened to us by the likes of O and his ideologues.

    • Gman

      Bob: those of simpish minds cannot fathom what you are saying. They don’t understand that this situation is not about black or white, but about crushing any and all semblance of the ability to think for oneself. The devaluation of the dollar is just one of the many ways the elite work to weaken the masses. And those who people think of as elite have their handlers too. They are just the tip of the iceberg.

  • An Old Seabee

    I believe that if the US military were ordered to attack their homeland it would result in an internal rebellion of the military establishment its self. If I were on active duty I would consider that order to be an illegal order…….

    • Fossie

      I think your right about that one but its not our troops I fear. I think what will happen is the president will force the UN gun treaty through giving him a fed. data base of everyone who owns a gun. Then when us troops refuse to UN arm us he will invite the UN in. Blue headed troops will be on our streets going house to house and you will ether give up your guns or be shot outright or will disappear.

      • Valdez Runner

        A lot sooner than you think.

      • Gordon

        AMEN x 3

  • Zed

    I wrote a fairly long article about the history of the Pledge some years ago and can still recite the original from memory:
    “I pledge allegience to my flag and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
    The two things most notable in reading the original are that the words “The United States of America” and “under God” are missing.
    Bellamy did this because it was his intention that the pledge should be used by children all over the world, regardless of what country they lived in.
    The omission of “under God” is all the more remarkable because he was a minister! Clearly HE understood the importance of the seperation of church and state.

    • Gman

      Hey Brabbie 2002: What about all of the years that people could only vote for men of one color. If we look back on history (His Story) we can see that those people of one color brought us ( this nation) to this point of almost no return.

  • http://firstallegiance.us mike

    Great publication – heard our US constitution of 1789 specifically imposed a “one nation standard” specifically requiring each state to ratify agreement to subjugate membership of to the Union. When the South announced succession, they broke the contract and, legally, the war was on. And yes, I said the pledge and one nation under god far exceeds any alternative. Separation of church and faith cannot mean a religion of atheism …

  • shadow

    “What will they say next time they recite the pledge?”

    Nothing different, I’m sure. They are generally too stupid to recognize the irony.

  • DavidL

    Wow, Bob, you, and all the extreme conservatives writing on this site, are still reeling (shell shocked?) from your election loss. You have no one to blame but yourself. Keep pushing the birther-ism, the Kenyan colonialist crap, the war on women, the 47% takers and moochers, and now “secession” and I guarantee you will be helping Obama and the Democrats succeed even more. As we used to say in the army, it’s time to get your head out of your duffel bag.

    War of Northern aggression? As a southerner, you still don’t believe the Civil War is over, do you? HA! I heard that from many southern boys when I served with them in the army. Funny stuff, but divorced from reality.

    It’s okay to be wrong, Bob. It’s not okay to be wrong, on the same issue, twice. I hope you make it out of the wilderness so you can start contributing positively and constructively to our country. If you do not, you will continue to be irrelevant. But look on the bright side. Our socialist military will continue to protect you. Our socialist police and fire departments will continue to protect you. Our socialist social security system will continue to support you even after the money you paid into the system is exhausted. Our socialist medicare health system will continue to protect your health. Our new socialist health reform system, you know the one declared constitutional by the Supreme Court, will protect you and your family from “for-profit” excuses to deny you health care. You will no longer have to worry about going medically bankrupt. You will no longer have to worry about annual or life time caps on medical coverage. Our socialist public education system will continue to educate your family.

    Even though I seldom agree with your views, I respect your right to your point of view and the fact that you are a fellow American citizen.

    Best wishes to you and to your family, Bob.

    DavidL

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear DavidL,

      You write: “Wow, Bob, you, and all the extreme conservatives writing on this site, are still reeling (shell shocked?) from your election loss.” What do you mean by “your election loss?” As I was not a Romney man, I did not lose. I knew that Ron Paul would not win. The elites settled that long ago.

      You write: “War of Northern aggression?” The South sought a peaceful separation. Do you prefer War of American Aggression?

      You write: ” I hope you make it out of the wilderness so you can start contributing positively and constructively to our country. If you do not, you will continue to be irrelevant.” Irrelevant? Something makes you and a host of other progressive/statist/communist shills come here and refute every idea and notion on a daily basis. There are hundreds of thousands of subscribers who find us “relevant.”

      You write: “Even though I seldom agree with your views, I respect your right to your point of view and the fact that you are a fellow American citizen.

      Best wishes to you and to your family, Bob.” Thank you.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Wake The Sleepers(Jay)

        Mr Livingston says: Irrelevant? Something makes you and a host of other progressive/statist/communist shills come here and refute every idea and notion on a daily basis. There are hundreds of thousands of subscribers who find us “relevant.”

        ROFLMAO!!! Like shooting fish in a barrel…

    • http://google big T-little roy

      david davidL, no matter what your anger is, you will eventually come to reconcile with fact and fiction! our country, that has engaged in your pious thoughts, were given to us by men who thought about the future! can you even imagine things beyond your cell phone? no one even knows the constitution and or the bill of rights! we have become the nation of give me now! we will as a nation are in dire straights, not the band, but our brand has been broken! calmly, look at things that are taking place! these intimate and some not so, will come to fruition!

  • Scott

    It’s been a long time since I’ve been able to say the word “indivisible” during the pledge. Our nation is irreconcilably divided.

  • SChambliss

    People say it with patriotic fervor, with their hands placed dutifully on their hearts. They don’t realize its value as a propaganda tool. The Nation was not conceived as “indivisible,” though the War of Northern Aggression made it so.

    War of Norther Aggression? What kind of racist crap is this?

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear SChambliss,

      You write: “What kind of racist crap is this?” Where was “race” mentioned? Will you find War of American Aggression more pleasing?

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Valdez Runner

        It’s the revisionist history Bob. They have been taught that the US Civil War was about slavery. Let’s face it, since the 30s that is what the public school kids were taught. As I said before, the hippies of the 60s are running this country and their kids and grandkids are voting for their socialist agenda…

      • Jeremy Leochner

        The Civil War was about slavery. The south seceded because they felt their way of life was under threat. What was their way of life- slave owning. Slavery was the back bone of the southern economy and they were convinced Lincoln the “black republican” as they often called him was going to free the slaves and set them loose on their former masters. This was put in no unclear terms when in listing their causes of secession the state of South Carolina painted the conflict to come not as one of north versus south or state versus federal but as slave state versus free state. It was not states rights that were under threat it was slave states rights. In the declaration of causes of secession the south Carolina representatives stated

        “The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these
        laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.”-http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina

        In it they also state ”
        We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”-http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina

        So government became destructive when it began to threaten slavery. Secession is what resulted in the Civil War. The secession of the south helped bring about war. Secession was an attempt to preserve the institution of slavery. As such I see a great deal of logic in the statement “The Civil War was about slavery”.

        • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

          Dear Jeremy Leochner,

          You write: “The Civil War was about slavery.” This opening statement makes the rest of your post irrelevant.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I disagree Mr. Livingston. As far as I am concerned slavery is as much responsible for starting the Civil War as Pearl Harbor was responsible for America going to war with Japan. My comments are not irrelevant.

        • navyjr

          You’re mistaken, sir; it was states’ rights in the south and “preserving the union” in the north!

      • Flashy

        jeremy…no matter how you try and explain the economic basis for the Southern rebellion and the issues always falling back to being one centered around slavery, this site seems to have an aversion to the reasons for the rebellion. Refer anyone who denies slavery as being the underlying main cause for the rebellion to the tales of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Valdez Runner,”

        YOU SAY, “They have been taught …”; IF “They” REFERS TO NEGROES, YOU ARE WRONG. NEGROES HAVE N-E-V-E-R HEARD ABOUT SLAVERY IN SCHOOL. NEGROES KNOW ABOUT SLAVERY BECAUSE OF THE ORAL-HISTORY TRADITION – WHICH DATES BACK TO PRE-COLONIAL TRIBAL AFRICA – PASSED-ON TO THEM BY THEIR ELDERS.

      • TML

        Jeremy Leochner says “The Civil War was about slavery. “

        If no one actually invaded to free slaves, then what does this statement really mean… “about” slavery?

        Jeremy Leochner says “The south seceded because they felt their way of life was under threat. What was their way of life- slave owning.”

        Thus, they seceded over their southern economic livelihood… or, “slavery”. But I disagree the war itself was about slavery.

        Jeremy Leochner says “…and they were convinced Lincoln the “black republican” as they often called him was going to free the slaves and set them loose on their former masters.”

        That would be incorrect. The only discourse was about slavery spreading into the west. An amendment was proposed which would have protected slavery in the states in which it currently existed… basically saying that the Constitution cannot be amended to give Congress the authority to interfere which slavery in those states. Lincoln said to this that he had no objection to making this irrevocable.

        As many today play the race card, so Lincoln, once the conflict had erupted, played the slavery card. And that is the only true extent to which the war was “about” slavery.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        TML I suppose it is some what ambiguous to say the Civil War was about slavery. Perhaps I could best say that but for slavery the war would not have happened. Slavery was what fueled the fire. The desire to protect slavery was what lead the south to secede and secession is what lead to the war. As Lincoln said in his second inaugural address “one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.” One of my primary sources on the Civil War is James M. McPhersons Battle Cry of Freedom. It goes in depth into the Pre Civil War years and examines the numerous political and economic issues. Numerous southern politicians and newspapers painted Lincoln and The Republicans as “Black Republicans” and spread horror stories about how they would make the slaves the equal of the white man and end slavery forever. These were the attack ads during the 1860 election and were what got people into a frenzy in the elections immediate aftermath.

        As for Lincoln playing the slavery card. Lincoln always believed slavery was wrong. But he felt there was a time and place to start abolishing it. When it became clear slavery was helping to fuel the confederacy and that contradiction between liberty and slavery would keep the country divided he chose to act against it. I would not consider that to be “playing the slavery card”.

      • Gordon

        If all else fails, play the “race card”.

  • James

    The real problem here is that the government schools have been promoting a myth for about 150 years. There has as yet to be a ‘civil war’ in our country. The war you are referring to was not a civil war. A civil war is where there is an attempt to overthrow an existing government and replace it with either another government or a military junta. In the war of 1861-1865, the South attempted to secede and form their own country with its own government. As portrayed in U.S. history books, the “benevolent” Lincoln, who, during his campaign speeches said that slavery was a non-issue with him, used violence against the South, “in order to form a more perfect union” (his words). In all respects of that violence, Lincoln acted like a tyrant and a bully. His idea of a ‘perfect union’ was one that we suffer under to this very day. He trampled the Constitution, denied Habeas Corpus to many of the people in the north, bullied newspaper editors, jailed local politicians from states that didn’t secede for the duration of the war, had a U.S. congressman deported and only played the slavery card when it looked like France and England might back the seceding states This, while still taught today as a civil war, was not a civil war. If anyone where to compare it to our history, the Revolutionary War should come to mind. Patriots throwing off the shackles of an overbearing government.

    • Valdez Runner

      generally speaking……. ya…. OK

    • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

      Let me ask you James the same question I’ve asked others, “Would the south have freed the slaves if they had won the war?”

      • Wil

        “There is no right,and ought to be no inclination of the people in the free states to enter into the slave states,and interfere with the question of slavery at all.” – Abe Lincoln

        That,Timothy,is the point you keep missing,Lincoln,from the start,had no intentions of freeing the slaves.Slavery was not even an issue of the Civil War.
        The Emancipation Proclamation,introduced after the Civil War,was the result of the decision by the majority of the people,including the south, to end slavery.

        • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

          No Wil, read the constitution of the confederacy……Most of if is directly copied from the US constitution. However, there is a clause which specifically says that no law shall ever be passed against slavery. Would you not say that sucg a statement particularly glaring and telling? Why would they, the framers of the confedrate constitution, make such dramatic departure from the US constitution if it were not a critical and primary concern?

          The inclusion of that article disproves all the arguments to the contrary. Yes! The Civil War was about states rights, but it was without doubt the right of the southern states citizens to own slaves. They even went so far as to make sure that no laws attempting to end slavery could be presented in the confederate congress.because such acts would be deemed unconstitutional.

          The Civil War was about slavery. Period. The issue of slavery had been discussed during the debates over the US Constitution. The founding fathers decided that forming a more perfect union, a new sovereign nation, one that was based upon ‘we, the people’ and not ‘we, the states’, one that was perpetual and indissolveable, was worth setting aside such a contentious issue in order to create that union.

          The issue of slavery would be a divisive one for many many years. the knew the issue would come back to the fore, but hoped that calm and reason and time would ameliorate the wounds.

          It didn’t. Thus the Civil War ensued: austensibly over states rights (a point used to ‘sell’ secession and war to the population), but more accurately over slavery as one of those rights as was made very clear in the confederate constitution.

        • navyjr

          Emancipation was introduced in Jan 1863; but not enforced until the end of the war since they couldn’t do so in the middle of the war.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Slavery would have gone away by itself because it became too big an economic burden to maintain on the plantations before the Civil War, buying the slaves, housing the slaves, clothing the slaves, feeding the slaves, medical maintenance of the slaves, training the slaves, policing the slaves.
        Yiou have no interest in what occurred in the South before or after the Civil War except for an academic argument.

    • hwc

      I have had to rethink my opinion of John Wilkes Booth.

    • Flashy

      ” the “benevolent” Lincoln, who, during his campaign speeches said that slavery was a non-issue with him, used violence against the South, “in order to form a more perfect union” (his words).” <— James

      errrr…these are words from the Preamble of the Constitution. If you are referring to a specific speech of Lincoln's, which one? Lincoln did not initiate the violence in the rebellion…that was begun by the South, and the South was the one in armed resurrection against the Union. The South fired the first shots and was the first to march an army against the other.

      So there can be no revision of history…read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. It will be illuminating…

      http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/lincolninaugural1.html

      • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

        Dear Flashy,

        You write: “The South fired the first shots and was the first to march an army against the other.” South Carolina had tried for months to facilitate the transfer of Ft. Sumter, first with Buchanan and then with Lincoln, which was located in Charleston Harbor. It’s not feasible for a nation that considers itself sovereign to countenance a foreign fort on its territory. Jefferson Davis was content to wait them out. Anderson reported they would run out of food in days. Then Lincoln announced he was sending ships of war to resupply the fort. One US ship arrived and docked. That’s when the order was given to fire. The firing was precipitated by Lincoln to start the war.

        Lincoln then began to carry out Scott’s Anaconda Plan and blockade Southern Ports. General McClellan invaded Va. to start the land war at Fairfax County Courthouse.

        Please bone up on your history if you’re going to enter the debate.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

      • Flashy

        “Dear Flashy,

        You write: “The South fired the first shots and was the first to march an army against the other.” South Carolina had tried for months to facilitate the transfer of Ft. Sumter, first with Buchanan and then with Lincoln, which was located in Charleston Harbor. It’s not feasible for a nation that considers itself sovereign to countenance a foreign fort on its territory. Jefferson Davis was content to wait them out. Anderson reported they would run out of food in days. Then Lincoln announced he was sending ships of war to resupply the fort. One US ship arrived and docked. That’s when the order was given to fire. The firing was precipitated by Lincoln to start the war.
        ===
        Mr. Livingston, apparently you believe that a federal fort is unable to receive replacements and refreshment unless a state authorizes such. I take it you would state that up to that point, the South…or any state for that matter…was always asked for permission by the federal government to supply and refresh each of it’s forts?

        Lincoln’s point, and any President would take the same stance, is that federal property is federal property…state’s permissions are not required. And since the Confederacy was illegitimate and unlawful (it was never recognized by any nation), it was not a body to give any permission.

        Had the South allowed the Fort to be replenished and resupplied, the first shot would have been fired elsewhere…by rebels/criminals.
        ====

        Lincoln then began to carry out Scott’s Anaconda Plan and blockade Southern Ports. General McClellan invaded Va. to start the land war at Fairfax County Courthouse.
        ===
        Lincoln took what steps were required to rein in the rebels. As you well know, at the time the rebellion began, the US navy was mainly symbolic (as was most of the army when the treasonous officers deserted to the South) and the blockade was ineffective until later in the war. It was a passive blockade as well…it was not an attacking blockade.

        Your reference to Fairfax County being an invasion is confusing. The Confederacy was not recognized. That there were rebels was recognized…but how can a sovereign nation invade itself? In addition, the company of soldiers (not much of a “invasion force” if you continue to insist the rebellion was between two sovereign states) were sent across the bridge to protect the FEDERAL armory and property. If memory serves correct, I believe the only casualty was a Union officer shot by a rebel sniper. Again, the rebels fired the first shot.
        ==========

        Please bone up on your history if you’re going to enter the debate.’ <— Mr. Livingston

        I don't believe my knowledge of history requires 'boning up" at this time.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dixie.davis.9 Dixie Suzan Davis

    The “indivisible” part of the pledge is to re-inforce the Lincoln concept, secession is illegal. By 1892 all the Civil War vets are getting old. New generations have appeared. They need indoctrination. Hence this pledge. It goes along with the apotheosis of Lincoln. The thinking propagated is that Lincoln won the war. Therefore what the demigod Lincoln did is true, right and correct. Except that for those who study the acts of Lincoln find the Lincoln administration is the most UCoonstitutional administration in US history. Licoln had a military despotism. BUT Lincoln won the war, therefore one may copy Lincoln and form a military despotism on his model if needs be in a “crisis”. This is the groundwork for Our Obama. Obamadoes not follow the Constitution. Given the Lincoln model and secession may Obama follow the Lincoln model??? One example. Before the 1st Battle of Bull Run(1st Battle of Manassas) and no firing on Fort Sumpter yet, the legislature of Maryland said they were going to vote secession. The legislature members were traveling to the capitol of Maryland and it looked like enough to vote Maryland secession. Lincoln commanded the US Army to arrest the members of the Maryland legislature who were on their way. The legislature was arrested without charge on Presidential order and imprisoned for 3 years without charge, trial or Writ of Habeous Corpus right. Licoln had abrogated the Writ of Habeous Corpus also. Now this legislature arrest was to stop something that might occur. If Texas legislature today was considering voting Texas secession can Obama, invoking Lincoln and Maryland actions, have the Texas legislature arrested without charge and imprisoned under Presidential decree alone????
    Playing with secession is playing with fire under Obama.

    • Gordon

      AMEN, sessession WILL cause Marshall Law and the dictatorship beyond “rule by executive orders”…. 3rd term?

      • http://www.facebook.com/dixie.davis.9 Dixie Suzan Davis

        Thank ya’ll for your reply.

      • navyjr

        Marshall was a PLAN for rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII! Martial law, to which you thought you were referring has been in effect since Lincoln instituted it, and while dialed back at present, NEVER lifted since!

    • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson
      • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

        The Secession Tradition in America.

        http://www.ditext.com/livingston/tradition.html

        • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

          Good to have opposing views and understandings Bob. I prefer civil discourse about opposing views, than the raucous emotion based ferver of some.

        • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

          I read your discussion about secession. Though I agree with the theoretical discussion, and particularly the references to the UN Charter, I would suggest that to be properly balanced, actual quotes from our other founding fathers should also be considered – as outlined on my blog at http://strategicglobalpolicyforum.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/secession-myth-or-constitutional-right/

          It is interesting that the UN Charter is used a reference in support of secession as a right. Such a statement would further suggest that the UN Charter is supreme to that of the US Constitution. The UN was formed by treaty agreement, and as such its rulings are enforceable. However the UN Charter is just that a charter. It’s not a constitution. Thus, the UN is not supreme to the US, but, and this is a big ‘but’, given a few more years of a ‘confederation’ type arrangement nations will strengthen the charter to something more than that. And, then the secession arguments will accelerate.

          Secession, as discussed by our founding fathers, was not conceivable since the US had moved from a confederation to a union, a nation. The southern states, when they wrote their constitution, changed it little from the US constitution, but added a specific clause, not mentioned in your dessertation, that no law could ever been passed banning slavery. That clause, flies in the face of those who say that the Civil War was over states right, of that is was the war of northern aggression. That clause shows just how prominently slavery was vital to the future of the south. And, that clause was not discussed in your work – as it and many other arguments should have been.

          But overall, a really good piece on secession though biased to one side of the argument.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dixie.davis.9 Dixie Suzan Davis

        timothywilliamson – I read your posted site. A lot of what was said is quite true. BUT, the fundamental points get left off. The USA was founded on a document of secession. The Declaration of Independence July 4th, 1776 is the justification for it. NO ONE ever claims no matter what the nation ever becomes you can’t ever leave. That is insanity of the first order. A civil government founded on secession from the British Empire justified by the illegal actions of a Tyrant King suddenly claims that if you have a Tyrant President who does exactly the same thing abrogates all the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence??? Those were expediencies not principles?? Don’t be an idiot.
        When Virginia ratified the Constitution it did so by document. Virginia was THE most important sovereign State to join. BUT in the ratification document were priviso’s. #1 there needs to be amendments to the Constitution, and that is how the Bill of Rights gets introduced and passed. If no Bill of Rights Virginia reserved the right to leave. In fact, Virginia reserved the right to secessed if the Constitution EVER became destructive of the lives, liberties or properties of its citizens. Virginia was admitted under those conditions. A contractual admission in the ratification document of the right of secession for Virginia. The Bill of Rights got introduced in the first session of Congress to keep the pledge to Virginia. They were passed. Rhode Island did not trust the Constitution. In its ratification document it reserved the right to seceed. I believe it is Connecticute who also had secession included in their ratification document. Now if ther ratification documents were illegal then they never have been part of the Union. No one EVER questioned their ratification documents to be illegal. It was Lincoln who decreed only Virginias document to be illegal. Secession was illegal even though Virginia reserved it unto themselves when joining. Is Rhode Islands reserved right of secession illegal too? No one digs that deep because it causes evidence of right of secession.

      • GALT

        Unfortunately, ratification of the Constitution was “all or nothing” deal……..it was either
        yes or no………….there was no yes, BUT? option……..and anything after YES, was irrelevant, because the terms of ratification did not permit it…..

        This is also true of any amendments submitted to the states for ratification…..no changes
        are permitted………

        • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

          So what are you saying Galt? Is that not the nature of compromise? What would you prefer that the framers have done?

    • Jimmy the Greek

      who is playing ? A lot of people in texas are for secession in texas .

      • http://www.facebook.com/dixie.davis.9 Dixie Suzan Davis

        The danger is if the legislature ever tried it. Lincoln’s radicals won the war. The initial claim of Lincoln is the war is fought to “preserve the Union”. There is no Constitutional requirement to preserve the Union. Look for it, it ain’t there. However, afet 100,000 northern dead to “preserve the Union”, the Lincoln boys change their tune. They do so when it is obvious they will win. It is time to go for the “higher law”. Now it is to fight the Greatest Evil known to man, “slavery”. Lincoln and friends win the war. Suddenly their is no Union to preserve. The was no Union to preserve from day 1 of the war. To issue an ordinance of secession by any State is to self destruct as a State and become not a State, but a territory of the USA in open Rebellion. There is no Union to preserve because those seceeded aren’t States at all, they become in the end conquered territories. Hence they have no representation in Congress because there are no States. BUT to ratify the 14th amendment proposed by radicals in Congress, conquered territories are construed to be States for purposes of ratification, especially when the Northern war winning States won’t pass it. Hence troops are kept in the conquered territories for years. All the conquered territories eventually submit Constitutions to Congress and admitted as States. By 1870 they are now new States with state Constitutions just like the radicals always wanted them to be. So if Texas ever passed a secession document it self destructs as a State and becomes a rebellious territory which can be conquered by Federal troops. The legacy of Lincoln in US law.

        • navyjr

          That was also the SAME time DC became a corporation in defiance of the Constitution; by standing on the Constitutional right to secede the states’ people who ARE the real government {WE the PEOPLE}not the state governments or the Federal government,{ which USED to be the federal government, before incorporation, and CAPS are important in this context}, are telling that corporation we’re SICK and TIRED of supporting it to our detriment!

    • Wil

      That is probably one of the reasons Obama decreed the NDAA.

    • Flashy

      Dixie…you would do well to read the Constitution. Under the Constitution the federal government can unquestionably suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus if the public safety requires it during times of rebellion or invasion. The issue is whether Congress or the president holds this power. Lincoln claimed he held this power by virtue of the oath of office. Note Congress appeared to agree when it passed the Suspension Act of 1863 which “authorized [lincoln] to suspend the writ. In other words, he held the power and Congress agreed

      • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

        Dear Flashy,

        You write: “Dixie…you would do well to read the Constitution. Under the Constitution the federal government can unquestionably suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus if the public safety requires it during times of rebellion or invasion.” You would do well to read the Constitution yourself. Article 1 is dealing with legislative powers. Article 1, Section 9 says: “The Privilege of the Write of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it.” Clearly that power is delegated to Congress. The Supreme Court told Lincoln he did not have that power but he ignored them. The South was not in Rebellion. They had peacefully removed themselves from the union. There was no invasion by the South. There was no danger to public safety. Even if Lincoln possessed the power, the threshold had not been met.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

        P.S. First George W. Bush and now Obama have also unConstitutionally suspended habeas corpus.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dixie.davis.9 Dixie Suzan Davis

        The Constitutional reference you made is correct. But it is a power of Congress. The President claimed it was his to use as he willed. But he went even further. He claimed he could delgate the power to suspend the Writ of Habeous Corpus to military officers. They could then suspend it at will as they so chose. And they did.
        Here is a book everybody should read–it is a free scanned download.
        John A. Marshall 1871 – American Bastille; a history of the illegal arrests & imprisonment of American citizens during the late Civil War
        http://archive.org/details/americanbastille00mars

      • navyjr

        Only while under Martial Law, which we are under and have been since 1861!

      • Flashy

        “Best wishes,
        Bob

        P.S. First George W. Bush and now Obama have also unConstitutionally suspended habeas corpus.”

        Mr. Livingston…we have a different reading of Article 9, Section 1. I believe Congress, when later it phrased the Suspension Act as “authorizing” the execution of suspending the writ, itself implicitly recognized the Power was an Executive Power.

        Your reference to Taney’s ruling…you know it was not as a member of the Supreme Court that Taney wrote the decision. It was when he took the very unusual step of sitting as a federal circuit court judge to take the case. i don’t know if such order was appealed. It may well have been. nor do i know if those held petitioned a higher court to order enforcement of the federal circuit court’s ruling. Any appeal or further question was rendered moot within a few months as Lincoln did release the prisoners.

        I agree with your last statement I quoted above as to Bush. I would not be surprised, but admit to not knowing, if president Obama has ordered or caused to be held without trial, people arrested and held by the US

  • hwc

    No matter how eloquent the words of any of the above mentioned writings, the reasons behind them were probably just a method of controlling the people who lived at the time, and getting them to support a government decided upon by the elite of the era. Nothing has really changed since: except the rulers now control a much bigger portion of your individual rights, and can keep a much closer watch on you.

  • Carl

    Secession is a last resort but it cannot be taken off the table. I really don’t care what some federal judge said a 150 years ago or what they say now. We have an out of control federal government that is giving away goodies it cannot afford. We have a Supreme Court that is forcing all of us to follow policies that they determine is now the law of the land. That is not what the founders signed up for when they set up the Constitution. The Federal government has no more right to be the final say than legislators of a sovereign state. The only way this country can stay together is for the power of the federal government to be removed to its original intent and let the states decide if they want to provide a social net for their people and whether or not they want to have abortions in their states or have sodomites marrying, Then if people don’t like what their state is doing then they can move to another state. But to try to force these issues on all the people will cause those that feel they have lost their freedoms to push for a separation. If we return our federal government to handle those areas they are by law supposed to handle (mostly the military) and let the states handle everything else, then chances are we will be able to stay united and allow the states to handle all other issues based on what their constitiuents believe is best for their state.

    • navyjr

      Our Constitution would never have been ratified in the first place without the provision for secession from the union if a state and its people were dissatisfied with the direction of the union!

      • Flashy

        navyjr…please point out anywhere in the Constitution where it gives the right to a state to secede. Especially in light of Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

        how could the Southern Confederacy be in rebellion if they had a right to secede?

        • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

          Dear Flashy,

          You write: “please point out anywhere in the Constitution where it gives the right to a state to secede.” Secession is not mentioned, therefore it is reserved to the States per the 9th and 10th Amendments.

          You write: “Especially in light of Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

          how could the Southern Confederacy be in rebellion if they had a right to secede?” Circular reasoning. You are grasping at straws.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

        • navyjr

          10th Amendment; in case you aren’t aware those were ratified with the main body of the Constitution and were WRITTEN in order to address states’ concerns about things NOT in the main body before it was ratified. The Southern states were only “in rebellion” in the minds of northerners who chose to ignore the Constitution then, much like Obama does now!

      • http://www.facebook.com/dixie.davis.9 Dixie Suzan Davis

        Dear Flashy — The free people of the States United boast that their obedience is paid to the power of the laws they make, and not to the persons who are entrusted with the duty of executing them. Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God was the Revolutionary war motto.
        The people of each State in its State ratifying Convention used their power to have the US Constitution become law. Because these States were sovereign and did ratify it, therefore it became part and parcel of the State Constitutions, of equal force and obligation with the other organic acts of the people of the States in their sovereignty, providing for a government for the State. It has the like force on the sovereign people of a State with their Constitution. In this it purports to represent the will of the, State, and is law so long as it has the solemn consent of the people of the State, acting in their sovereignty. By a US Constitution, the people of a State delegate the power of representing their sovereignty in expressed things; but they did not renounce their sovereignty or transfer it. A US Constitution makes officers, agents to exercise powers of government, and limits and defines the spheres and powers of these officers as agents. They are the servants of the people. It does not transfer the sovereignty from the people to their agents, making the officers and agent to be sovereign, and the former sovereign people to be the subjects. On the contrary, every constitutional government announces that all powers are derived from the will of the people, and all powers not granted by the people are reserved to the States or people (10th Amendment). The officers and agents cannot have more powers than the principal. The creature cannot be greater than the creator.

      • Flashy

        “Dear Flashy,

        You write: “please point out anywhere in the Constitution where it gives the right to a state to secede.” Secession is not mentioned, therefore it is reserved to the States per the 9th and 10th Amendments.
        =====
        Mr. Livingston…the 9th enumerates right of the people..not that of the states. The 10th is not relevant. Secession not being a power as the Union is in perpetuity and cannot be dissolved by anything less than unanimity of the States or amendment to the Constitution.
        ==========

        You write: “Especially in light of Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

        how could the Southern Confederacy be in rebellion if they had a right to secede?” Circular reasoning. You are grasping at straws.
        ==========
        No…the reasoning being used is circular, i was pointing such out. If there is a right to secede, a state cannot be in rebellion. If in rebellion, it has no right to secede.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

  • http://rexcurry.net tinnyray

    The Pledge of Allegiance was the origin of the Nazi salute and Nazi behavior (see the work of the historian Dr. Rex Curry).

  • Sandra Lee Smith

    I’ve been feeling like a hypocrite every time I say the Pledge at city council meetings or Veterans’ functions for months; because I know beyond any question, this nation IS divided more deeply and widely than it was in March of 1861, and the inevitable conclusion IS a split along ideological lines, or conservatives MUST give up our religions, morals, ethics and valuesto, become homosexual, socialist, racist, haters like the rest I took my oath to the Constitution which THEY have been using as little more than TP, and I will NOT capitulate!

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Sandra, No one is proposing that you become “homosexual, socialist, racist, haters like the rest”. There is no rest in this case. I am a liberal and I am neither homosexual, racist nor a hater. I am a Social Democrat but that’s me not you. You have a right to your beliefs and will continue to have them. If someone assaults or challenges your rights I stand with you against them. There is not a divide along ideological lines. The line is between extremism and moderatism.

      • navyjr

        If YOU truly believe that, I’ve got some great “ocean front” property to sell you down here in AZ, or I also know a fun bridge I can sell you!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        How is what I said so wrong or foolish navyjr.

        • navyjr

          If you need an explanation of that; I don’t have enough years left in me to give it so you can understand it; it’s quite plain to everyone who understands what our Declaration of Independence and Constitution say and mean.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I understand perfectly well what our declaration and constitution mean. And I see no evidence that Sandra is being forced too “give up our religions, morals, ethics and valuesto, become homosexual, socialist, racist, haters”. No one is making Sandra or anyone do that. That is fact.

        • navyjr

          In that case, you should go back to your Kool-aid and not let anything said here bother you, because you CLEARLY have NO CLUE what’s going on in this nation and DIDN’T listen to your “savior” earlier either!

      • eddie47d

        There is no rational in Sandra’s reasoning!

      • Gordon

        If free Americans, myself included, are being “forced” against our belief and will to acknowledge and even forced to provide financing for…. homosexual marriage, abortion, atheism, dis-armament of citizens, etc, things that WE disagree with…. then certainly WE ARE being forced to by the government because they are taking our money to pay for those things, etc.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Navyjr I am no blind Obama fanatic. I know he has made mistakes and immoral decisions. However there is more to life then black and white extremes. There are two easy ways to go through life, denying everything or believing everything. I do not subscribe to either of those extremes. I subscribe to reality. And the reality is not what Sandra says it is.

        • navyjr

          His decisions are not just immoral, they’re AMORAL, there’s a difference. And what you espouse is up to you. But NEVER try to define another person’s reality.

  • Lynn

    With their new found oil reserves and the profits those reserves could/should generate, North Dakota could secede from the Union and theoretically be very successful in doing so. North Dakota has a very small population and exporting oil to the United States could make them all very rich without having to pay their profits to Washington. Of course, all this talk of secession is just the venting of frustration and not to be taken very seriously… isn’t it?

    • CaroleAnn

      If ND separated from the US, the US would just invade them and take their oil after killing a large part of their small population. LOL

    • navyjr

      I began telling my state reps and governor to prepare for it when the 1st law suit against us got filed! Yes, it’s serious!

  • WSK

    “War of Northern Aggression?” Really? Bob, you lost me on that one. It makes you sound like a racist clown.I understand the politics of states rights, etc. but the bottom line is most people think the Civil War was over slavery.That war ended in 1865, if you can’t get over that then how will you ever move forward after this election debacle.

    • Steve E

      It was a War of Northern Aggression. The North invaded the South and started killing people who did not comply with their demands.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        The north made no demands until the south fired on Fort Sumter. The only demand after that was that the south return to the nation they were trying to break apart. And once the emancipation proclamation was issued the demand that they give up slavery was added. The north lead by the United States government was trying to keep the country together. The south was the side that seceded and brought the squabble to the fury of fire. As Lincoln said “one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.” The former in that statement was the south and the latter was the north.

      • navyjr

        No, technically, it was the south who attacked first; Ft Sumpter was a US Army post in Charleston Harbor, which the Southern {Confederate} forces attacked in April 1861. The North wasn’t even ready for wan at the time, and that’s why Bull Run I didn’t happen ’til June of that year.

      • Gordon

        Jeremy, did you just say that the slavery issue didn’t come up until 1865?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        No Gordon. I was saying the issue as a stated aim of the war did not come up until 1862 when Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. The issue was always present but it did not shape the union war effort until Lincoln realized its importance.

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear WSK,

      You write: “Bob, you lost me on that one. It makes you sound like a racist clown.” As you are the only one implying racism, you must be the “racist clown.”

      You write: “I understand the politics of states rights, etc. but the bottom line is most people think the Civil War was over slavery.” If that is so, then what most people think is wrong and demonstrates how our system of noneducation has dumbed down the populace, you included, apparently.

      You write: “That war ended in 1865, if you can’t get over that then how will you ever move forward after this election debacle.” What you don’t understand is the outcome of that war is the reason we have this “election debacle.” To better understand this, go here: http://personalliberty.com/2010/04/05/dont-pin-your-hopes-on-the-party-of-lincoln/

      Best wishes,
      Bob

    • navyjr

      The South called it that, because they were fighting for the STATES’ rights; and the NORTH was fighting {illegallly, I might add} to preserve the Union! Slavery didn’t become an issue in the war for a couple of years into it.

      • Toy

        “”My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

        • navyjr

          I’m acquainted with the history and with Lincoln’s speeches and writings; so what’s your point? All that does is confirm what I said except the illegality of his action against the south’s peaceful secession, which was their right to do, when they believed the government was not acting in their interests any longer. Nowhere is the power given to the POTUS to “preserve” the Union, when states wish to secede; only when attacked from without, which our current occupant in the WH seems oblivious to: both the duty and the invasion against which he SHOULD be acting!

          • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

            Read this for a prespective on the position of presidents and founders and others entitled, ‘Secession……myth or constitutional right?’

            http://strategicglobalpolicyforum.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/secession-myth-or-constitutional-right/

          • Sandra Lee Smith

            Global policy has absolutely NOTHING with our Constitutional right to secede!

          • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

            You should read the blog post before you say something like that. The post is about secession in the US.

          • navyjr

            That’s precisely what I was talking about; the rights of the states to secede has NOTHING to do with ” global policy” , which YOU injected into the discussion!

          • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

            Secession……myth or constitutional right.

            1) Constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar argues that the permanence of the United States changed significantly when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the adoption of the United States Constitution. This action “signaled its decisive break with the Articles’ regime of state sovereignty.” By creating a constitution instead of some other type of written document, it was made clear that the United States was: Not a “league”, however firm; not a “confederacy” or a “confederation”; not a compact among “sovereign’ states” — all these high profile and legally freighted words from the Articles were conspicuously absent from the Preamble and every other operative part of the Constitution. The new text proposed a fundamentally different legal framework.

            2) Patrick Henry represented a strong voice for the Anti-Federalists who opposed adoption of the Constitution. Questioning the nature of the new political organization being proposed, Henry asked: “The fate … of America may depend on this. … Have they made a proposal of a compact between the states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing—the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America.”

            3) The Federalists would point out that Henry exaggerated the extent that a consolidated government was being created and acknowledged that states would continue to serve an important function even though sovereignty had been transferred to the American people as a whole. However, on the issue of whether states retained a right of unilateral secession from the United States, the Federalists made it clear that no such right would exist under the Constitution.

            4) James Madison, often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution”, spoke out against secession as a constitutional right. In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification, Madison discussed “revolution” versus “secession”: “I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes “nullification” and must hasten the abandonment of “Secession.” But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.”

            5) Andrew Jackson, for all his failings in understanding economics, said in his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, “But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.”

            6) James Buchanan said this, “In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.”

            7) In Texas v. White was argued before the United States Supreme Court during the December 1868 term. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase read the Court’s decision, the court ruled “in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of “an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.” In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States.

            8) In 1877, the Williams v. Bruffy decision was rendered, pertaining to civil war debts. The Court wrote regarding acts establishing an independent government that “The validity of its acts, both against the parent state and the citizens or subjects thereof, depends entirely upon its ultimate success; if it fail to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it; if it succeed and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation.”

            9) Historian Kenneth Stampp notes that a historical case against secession had been made that argued that “the Union is older than the states” and that “the provision for a perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation” was carried over into the Constitution by the “reminder that the preamble to the new Constitution gives us one of its purposes the formation of ‘a more perfect Union.”

            10) Concerning the White decision Stampp wrote: “In 1869, when the Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, finally rejected as untenable the case for a constitutional right of secession, it stressed this historical argument. The Union, the Court said, “never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation.” Rather, “It began among the Colonies. …It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation.”

            11) From George Washington – – – – – in his farewell address
            “In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. …….

            “To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”

            Conclusion

            The USA is indivisible. The transition from the Articles of Confederation to the constitutional republic signals a dramatic change from an association of sovereign states to a union of states bound together indivisibly as a sovereign nation. In signing the constitution, each state and the people in those states gave up to the new sovereign national government their separate state sovereignty indefinitely.

            Thus by constitutional law and by the words of our most prominent founding fathers, secession is a myth.

          • navyjr

            Try reading the FOUNDING FATHERS first !

          • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

            If I’m not mistaken, Washington, Henry, Madison were founding fathers…..but good night.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dixie.davis.9 Dixie Suzan Davis

        Dear navyjr — I notice here no one seems to recall that the States are Sovereign entities of civil government. They were so recognized to be in the 1782 peace treaty with England ending the Revolutionary war. What is the fundamental duty of a Sovereign National civil government? It is to protect the lives, liberties and properties of its citizens. It should be remembered that allegiance & protection are essentually rights and duties, the opposide sides of the same coin. A citizen has the duty to give allegiance in exchange for the right of protection from the Sovereign State. A Sovereign State has the duty to give protection to its citizenry in exchange for the right of allegiance. This is a contractual exchange. A Sovereign State which violates protection to its citizens but demands allegiance is a tyranny. Who ever breaks the contractual bond ends the contract. Allegaince and protection are all severed. This is the basis for the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. Allegiance was severed because protection was repudiated by the Crown. Only one line of the many listed was really needed in the Declaration of july 4, 1776. It was this one – “He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection…..”
        The bond of allegiance was severed.
        The States United contain Sovereign States. They have not delegated away their sovereignty to the Federal government. Sovereign States inherently have the right of allegiance and the duty of protection for their citizens. The people have allegiance to their States as well. Inherently, without question, Sovereign States have the right of secession, for without they cannot protect their citizens as Sovereign States. It is an inherent Right of all Sovereign States, and cannot be dissolved from them and have them remain Sovereign States. If the current Constitution now means that secession is illegal then there are no Sovereign States. They are taxing provinces of Washington. 50 fiefdoms under the direction of their respective satraps. And this would seem to make Contemptable Eric Holder of the DOJ the Grand Vizier of the entire system reporting only to Obama the First now upon reighning from the National throne.

        • navyjr

          I know; and so few have any real comprehension of what the Constitution and Declaration actually SAY and MEAN; it’s really sad. I loved your presentation. I had to “relearn” much of the history I’d grown up with to fully understand it. So many lies and half-truths. But the schools in many states aren’t even teaching those any longer. Keep teaching the truth; maybe it’ll penetrate a few of the heads…

      • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

        Navy – good name by the way since I am an alumnus of Navy – if you can answer one question for me, then it will prove or disprove the question of whether slavery was an issue before or later after the Civil War started.

        Would the south, of which I am a member, one who had family on both sides of the conflict, have freed the slaves if they had won the war?

        • navyjr

          I also had kin on both sides of that conflict, and I couldn’t tell you what MIGHT have happened, any more than YOU can, because that isn’t how the history went; and since we didn’t live then to be making the decisions, we can’t judge. NO ONE can say what he or she would do, let alone someone ELSE would do, until FACED with that circumstance; both my time in the Navy and my time as an EMT taught me that!

          • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

            By the way….read the post. I set the blog up to duscuss global policy decisions and planning, but found it necessary to discuss instead the secession question.

            As for the other question….I’ve copies and pasted this from an earlier response to your statement. Here it is again.

            Yes we can navy and gordon – – The constitution of the confederacy was basically copied word for word from the US constitution – except for some very dramatic differences.

            From the Confederate Constitution, Aritcle 1, Section 9, line 4 “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

            The Civil War was sold to the broader population, without real ellaboration, as a conflict over states rights. We hear those same arguments today. However, since the leaders of the condeferacy felt it necessary to include a provision in their constitution prohibiting any attempt to free the slaves, and labelling all such attempts as unconstitutional, then this, among many other such statements prior to and during the war, shows that the war was in fact over the issue of slavery.

            For them to put it explicitely in their constitution dispells of claims to the contrary about the root cause of the war. Yes! It was over states rights – the right of the southern states to keep slaves inperpetuity.

            So, to answer the question of whether the south would have freed the slaves, the answer is an unequivocal and very strongly stated – – – NO, not ever. It would have been unconstitutional.

            So with an abosulte YES, the Civil War was over slavery – the right of the south to keep it forever.

          • navyjr

            I read your post; obviously you didn’t read all of mine.

          • http://williamsoncontracting.wordpress.com timothywilliamson

            It is very possible I missed something you said. It was not intentional. Getting late for me…..time for bed here in Alabama.

            I’m on FB under ‘williamsoncontracting’.

            Good night.

  • Kinetic1

    Mr. Livingston,
    You have reached a new low. One look at these “petitions” and anyone can see that this “movement” is no where near what is being claimed. States like New York have petitions started by individuals from other states, and Delaware’s petition has less than 20% state resident participation. The same names crop up over and over again, including names from other nations. One would have to be blind not to see that this is the work of one group of people manipulating the system to appear much larger.

    “Now, thousands of people who have dutifully and with patriotic spirit recited that pledge are signing online petitions to secede peacefully from the union.”

    I welcome those who would voice their opinion. Let the people of each state call for secession if they feel this is the right path for their state. Texans (or citizens of any state) have every right to ask for secession of their home state, but they have no place working towards forcing the recession of the rest. Perhaps they believe that manipulating the system to encourage outsiders and like thinkers to believe that the majority of American’s do not support our President is “patriotic.” I, on the other hand see it as one of the worst forms of treason.

    • CaroleAnn

      We do seem to have many enemies within, both in high and low places.

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear Kinetic1,

      You write: “You have reached a new low.” Please elaborate. Please also point out anything in this article that is incorrect.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

    • Gordon

      Dear Kenetic 1,
      You certainly at least imply that YOU have a special IN to the thousands of names on petitions. So please explain how YOU have this insight to all the thousands of names on petitions in several states.

  • Deerinwater

    ” with liberty and justice for all.” Is where so many choke. ~

    • navyjr

      Really? My problem starts at “one nation” since we are ONLY that “in name only” and have been since WIlson started the socialist agenda in this nation, and FDR exploded it!

      • deerinwater

        Hmm, ~ well, I only recognize a single sovereign nation made up of many. How many do you count?

        • navyjr

          I was referring to the vast divides that now exist, ideologically in our peoples, on many levels, and along many “fault” lines that divide us more so than existed between north and south in March of 1861, when I said “in name only”.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      The questioners of “liberty and justice for all” are not choking on the partial phrase.The questioning is of the subjective meaning of that phrase. Who will give you liberty and justice and if they are capable of giving it to you they are also capable of taking it away at whim.

      • Gordon

        Now THAT’S profound.

  • Jim Uphoff

    The people signing the petition know full well that it will never be accepted. It is there way of showing their disagreement with the current administration. Not with the United States of America.

    • Kinetic1

      Jim,
      “It is there way of showing their disagreement with the current administration.”
      By misrepresenting themselves? By inflating the numbers in states they don’t live in? By creating petitions for states they have no vote in?

      • Gordon

        Again K1, where are YOU getting your secreted inside information as to illegal petitioners?

        Normal citizens recognize that petitions require valid residential addresses and contact information….. and yet you claim…….. what?

        • navyjr

          Thanks for backing me, about what’s being forced on us; as to where the info is coming from about signatories on the various petitions, I can’t speak for all of them, I didn’t look at all 50, but I did see on the one for TX, as well as the one for AZ signatories whose homes were listed from other states than that for which the petition was designed. You can go to the WH page and look at all the names and home states of the petitions signers.

  • Kinetic1

    Bob,
    I don’t question your facts or your biased view of the “War of Northern Aggression”, but I do question your motive. Perhaps I have misinterpreted your article, but you argue that the phrase “one nation indivisible” is propaganda, then suggest that these “petitions” are a legitimate attempt to secede. I’m certain that you know that any state successfully seceding is highly unlikely, possibly proving your assertion. So you present these petitions with no examination of the names, no questioning of the motive, no concern for the fact that many of these petitions don’t even begin to represent their states. I realize that it serves your purpose, but how can you honestly give weight to this transparent attempt at manipulation that, with even the slightest of examination looks to be nothing more than the work of conservative propagandists still hurting from the election?

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Der Kinetic1,

      You write: “then suggest that these “petitions” are a legitimate attempt to secede.” Please point out where I have stated the petitions “are a legitimate attempt to secede.”

      You write: “I realize that it serves your purpose…” Please tell me what is my “purpose.”

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Bob Livingston,”

        SIR, PLEASE DO NOT BE OFFENDED BY ME “GETTING INTO YOUR BUSINESS.”

        SINCE MY ARRIVAL IN JUNE, I HAVE NOTICED WHENEVER YOU REPLY TO SOMEONE’S COMMENTS AND REQUEST A RETURN-REPLY, YOU USUALLY DO NOT RECEIVE ONE. THAT FRUSTRATES ME.

        IF A COMMENTER EXPRESSES HER/HIS VIEWS ON A TOPIC, DO NOT “RUN-AWAY” BECAUSE THE BLOG OWNER WANTS YOU TO “EXPLAIN YOURSELF.” KNOWLEDGE ALWAYS HAS ROOM FOR DEBATE – DO NOT BE AFRAID.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        C A R, who are you to admonish Bob L. to not be afraid. I don’t see him being afraid.
        You are sneakily attempting to undermine him.

      • Kinetic1

        Bob,
        No, you did not come right out and say they were legitimate, but if there’s any question to their legitimacy why even present them as implying anything? You tell us that these people have “patriotic spirit”, but the fact is that they are, at the least creating a false impression and at worst attempting to manipulate the nation through false petitions.

        As for your purpose, your articles have made it clear that you would like to see us return to what you believe was the original intent of our founders. Here, in this article you offer up the idea that our nation was meant to be a loose assembly of state governments, free to make their own laws and leave if they please. Only through the evil of Lincoln and his war to force compliance did we become so legally bound. I would suggest that your motive is to quietly reintroduce the possibility of such a fragmented nation. That you seem enamored with the possibility that the promotion of these questionable petitions might help drive the wedge that you so want to see between the States and Federal government. That is the message I take away from your article.

      • Kinetic1

        CAH,
        And as to your comments sir, please excuse me for having a life away from my computer. Why you felt compelled to make a big deal about the fact that I had not responded is beyond me. I responded to Bob’s first request within about an hour and this one an hour and a half. Does that really put my bravery and integrity into question?

      • Kinetic1

        Mr. Livingston,
        The more I reflect on your article and read the words of those who seem to be your kindred spirits, I have to wonder just what your end goal might be. You look at the pledge as undesirable propaganda designed to make children accept the authority of government. Others attempt to create links to the Nazi party. Should I also assume that you are equally repelled by the Boy Scouts? How about most major Christian religions? If you feel so strongly against creating a sense of responsibility and union, how would you suggest we treat our State governments should we return to the original union state?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Nadzieja Batki,”

        YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND MY COMMENTS.

        I WAS NOT REFERRING TO, “Bob Livingston.” I WAS REFERRING TO THOSE COMMENTERS WHO SEEM INTIMIDATED BY “Mr. Livingston’s ‘INTELLECT’ .”

        SOME COMMENTERS PREFER “LOFTY” COMMENTS WITH WEB LINKS. OTHERS PREFER SIMPLE COMMENTS. PEOPLE WHO MAKE SIMPLE COMMENTS MAY BE SURPRISED TO KNOW MANY PEOPLE MAY AGREE WITH THEM – INSTEAD OF, THOSE WHO PRESENT “FLAWED DISSERTATIONS.”

        YES – “Mr. Livingston” OWNS THIS SITE. BUT, WHEN HE GETS INTO A DISCUSSION I ASSUME HE IS PREPARED TO DEAL WITH COMMENTERS WHO DISAGREE WITH HIS POINT OF VIEW ON A TOPIC. THE COMMENTERS WHO DO NOT REBUT “Mr. Livingston” AND “STAND THEIR GROUND,” ARE THE ONES I AM CALLING, “AFRAID.”

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Kinetic1,”

        ALTHOUGH MY COMMENTS WERE DIRECTED AT YOU IN THIS SITUATION, MY GOAL WAS TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT IN MOST CASES, COMMENTERS DO NOT GIVE “Mr. Livingston” A RETURN-REPLY. YOU DID.

        “Kinetic1,” IN AN EARLIER SITUATION BETWEEN US, YOU NOTICED HOW I CAN “GO BACK” TO THREADS WHICH ARE WEEKS- [OR, MONTHS] OLD AND MAKE A REPLY. YOU SAID, [sic], “Who does that?” MY POINT IS, “Kinetic1,” I HAVE LOOKED AT OLD THREADS AND NOTICED COMMENTERS N-E-V-E-R GAVE “Mr. Livingston” A RETURN-REPLY.

      • Deerinwater

        Mr. Horton says; “THE COMMENTERS WHO DO NOT REBUT “Mr. Livingston” AND “STAND THEIR GROUND,” ARE THE ONES I AM CALLING, “AFRAID.”

        I say; , You can look upon it that way I suppose, while there is such a thing as being a respectful guest if you can’t find a tactful approach in the quest fro resolve and resolution, standing down works best.

        Mr. Livingston has obliged me with skillful banter on one occasion that exposed a bias I could have persuaded while I remained mindful that I was tugging on Superman cape and allowed it to drop. It was not out of any fear but simply respect for a gracious, tolerant host that’s long efforts makes these political forums possible that we all enjoy.

        People must learn how to disagree without drawing blood or backing people in a corner to where they have “no way out” Mr. Horton. While neither you or I are guilt of such practice, many here attempt to be just as mean and nasty as possible.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Deerinwater,”

        YOU – TOO – DID NOT UNDERSTAND MY COMMENTS.

        I AM MERELY TALKING ABOUT KNOWLEDGE AND THE ABILITY TO TRANSMIT KNOWLEDGE TO OTHERS WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING LABELLED, “IGNORANT,” ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE.

        Personal Liberty HAS ARTICLES ON “Gold,” “Gun Grabs,” “Health Benefits of Apple-Cider Vinegar,” ETC. PEOPLE LOVE TO “JUMP INTO THE FRAY” AND TELL “EVERYTHING THEY KNOW” – BUT, THE MINUTE “Bob Livingston” GETS “INTO THE FRAY” AND STARTS ASKING QUESTIONS, PEOPLE “GET QUIET.”

        AS FAR I KNOW, THERE ARE NO EXPERT-COMMENTERS FOR EVERY ISSUE PRESENTED ON THIS SITE. I GREATLY APPRECIATE COMMENTERS WHO CAN PRESENT “THE MAN-ON-THE-STREET’S” VIEWS – PLAINLY. ON THE OTHER HAND, THOSE COMMENTERS WHO PRESENT LONG- AND HIGHLY DETAILED INFORMATION SEEM TO BE “STROKING THEIR OWN EGOS.”

        I AM NOT IMPRESSED.

      • Gordon

        Most pseudo-liberals when asked direct questions will either initiate an ad homonym attack, throw a red herring, or disappear.

  • http://www.facebook.com/patriotismforall Patriotism ForAll

    The Pledge was intended from the outset as propaganda.

    Francis Bellamy was a former Baptist minister who preached that Jesus was a socialist and advocated income taxation, central banking, nationalized education, nationalization of industry, and other tenets of socialism. His challenge was how to replace the federalist view of the country (where states and individual rights were sovereign) with a nationalist one that would pave the foundation for a central socialist government. Re-education of the public would prove difficult. But if American youth could to be taught “loyalty to the state”, it would pave the way for the socialist utopia that was described in his famous socialist cousin Edward Bellamy’s book, ‘Looking Backward”.

    The place to start would need to be primary education. The public schools could be used teach blind obedience to the central state. The opportunity to write a children’s oath that would promote flag worship (and sales) was just what he needed to begin re-directing the citizenry’s loyalty. So it was that, in 1892, Bellamy came to write the original Pledge of Allegiance: A universal tool for inducing children to swear their loyalty to the concept of an American nationstate. The “one nation, indivisible” wording was especially important to Bellamy for achieving his vision of socialism through a consolidated, monopoly government. To drive home the socialist goals, he ended it with a call for “liberty and justice.” He had considered adding the other socialist bywords, “fraternity and equality,” but knew that state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans and would oppose it.

    A “National Public School Celebration” was promoted to government officials to coincide with the 400th anniversary celebration of Columbus. It was the first national propaganda campaign on behalf of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a massive campaign that involved government schools and politicians throughout the country. To gain their cooperation, the program lauded government schools, while private schools, especially parochial ones, were criticized.

    Students were taught to recite the Pledge with their arms outstretched, palms down and then up. This was the custom in American public schools from the turn of the twentieth century until Hitler began using it to drill loyalty into his followers. He got it from the Italian fascists, who much admired – you guessed it – American schoolchildren doing it. Around 1950, public school officials suddenly decided that the salute was in bad taste and changed it to the familiar hand-over-heart salute.

    If you want to see what the original vision of indoctrination looked like go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute. If that doesn’t give you pause…

    • http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html tinnyray

      Wakipedia hides the fact that the Pledge of Allegiance was the origin of the Nazi salute and Nazi behavior (see the work of the historian Dr. Rex Curry)

      • Gordon

        A lot of WIKI is conspiracy theory, conjecture, and furtherance of rumors, of course posted by the people. Sorting out FACTS requires serious time in serious literature.

    • Gordon

      I feel that pledging myself to “One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” is not a cop out to socialism and a massive federal government. I believe that pledging myself to the idealism of the founding fathers of the United States of America which gave us a better way of life than most every other country of the world is what Patriotism is all about. WE are not perfect, just trying to be more equally just and help each individual perform to the maximum of his God given aptitute and talents.

  • KG

    The “war of Northern Agression”, the CIvil War? Abraham Lincoln was swiftboated!

  • Toy

    The 1954 addition was unfortunate.

  • Toy

    I have just been watching, “The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln”, which I found most touching.
    It seemed to be a good place from which to start on any reflection of where America is now.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoiZ_GOjIro&feature=related

    • Gordon

      50 years ago elementary teachers got upset with my viewpoint of Lincoln, but they couldn’t refute the facts that the university library held extensive works which explained who Lincoln was. Revisionist history has been taught since the 60s to manipulate the dumbing down of America in many many venues.

  • Holly Bentley

    Grammar King: I love your response to Jimmy the Greek’s post! ;-D

  • http://www.facebook.com/dixie.davis.9 Dixie Suzan Davis

    Perhaps in the midst of all this discussion, one should direct attention to what was written about secession by a principal dirctly involved. Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883) was VP of the Confederacy. Previously he had been in the US Congress as a representative of Georgia. The war was over. In 1868 he wrote a set of book Volume 1 & Volume 2 describing what was the Constitutional view of the War Between the States. In fact, the phrase “The War Between the States” was invented by him as the title of this set.
    Here is where to down load free scanned copies of these 2 volumes—
    Alexander H. Stephens Vol 1 1868 – Constitutional view of the Late War Between the States
    http://archive.org/stream/constitutionalvi11step#page/n9/mode/2up
    Alexander H. Stephens Vol 2 1870 – Constitutional view of the Late War Between the States
    http://archive.org/stream/constitutionalvi02step#page/n11/mode/2up

    Volume 1 was heavily reviewed by Northerners very unfavorably. Stphens then wrote a rebuttal as a suppliment to the 2 volumes above.
    Alexander H. Stephens 1872 – The reviewers reviewed; a supplement to the -War between the states -etc. & appendix in review of –Reconstruction – so called
    http://archive.org/details/reviewersreviewe01step
    This is not A quoting B who says C said Z when talking to Mr X. This is the Southern Constitutional expert speaking with that authority. It was on his Constitutional expertise that he was made VP of the Confederacy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dixie.davis.9 Dixie Suzan Davis

    Dear GALT – Thank you for your reply. I looked at your internet site recommended. Much of it is true and much of it is false. It seeks to make a case out of truths extended into the void to arrive at the irrational.
    One point of interest. Was the Constitution “ratified” OR was it “adopted”? The answer is BOTH. It was Ben Franklin who pointed out that it was always going to be questionable if the state agents sent to “revise” the Articles of Confederation could simply draw up a new document to make a more complete Union.. That is, did the States in their own authority have the power to authorize their agents to legally act to do that?? There were State agents who were at the Convention and agreed with the Constitution but refused to sign it because they did not feel their authorising documents as agents extended that far. So to get the Constitution in force 2 things were done. (1) the State civil governments “adopted” the document. Where adopt means “To accept, consent to, and put into effective operation; as in the case of a constitution, constitutional amendment, ordinance, court rule, or by-law.”—
    (2) the citizens of the State “ratified” the document by popular vote. Ratified is better defined in Henry C. Black 1910 – Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd edition) thusly; “This is where a person adopts a contract or other transaction which was not binding on him, because it was entered into by an unauthorized agent or the like.”
    Thus each State did 2 things. State civil government acted in law on the Constitution, and the citizens voted on the Constitution. Therefore, both entities the State civil government (who are merely agents of their own citizens) and the citizens in whom the State sovereignty resides made it law.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dixie.davis.9 Dixie Suzan Davis

    There has been a concerted effort since 1865 to destroy the concept of Sovereign States. The problem is the concept and its full meaning had at one time premeated the States United and its citizenry. Dumbdown is now in full swing. Sovereign States by their very nature wh enter into any contract have not only the right but the duty to abandon the contract if it endengers or causes injury to their citizens. The power to secede from contracts lies inherently in all Sovereign States. In the waning years of the Roman Republic Cicero wrote following words in regard the duty of a Sovereign State; in Latin –Salus populi suprema lex – The safety of the people is the supreme law. This was understood long before Cicero, but was succinctly expressed by him. Over several thousand subsequent years, under law in England “safety” became very clearly defined; protection of life, liberty and property. Thus Cicero in more modern time would have said “The lives, liberties and properties of the citizens is the supreme law”. Observe that all other contracts are not supreme law, only that one. Entering into a Constitutional is not supreme law for Sovereign States. Entering into a Constitutional contract is to better ensure the supreme law of a Sovereign State. If the Constitutional contract becomes destructive of the Supreme Law for Sovereign States, then they have more than a right to leave it, they have a duty to leave it, for if they do not leave it they too are abdicating their right of allegiance of their citizens by abrogating their duty of protection. This is the ultimate grounds for secession. Consider this Constitutional recognition of exactly that.

    US Constitution; Article IV, Section 4 – The United States shall GUARANTEE TO EVERY STATE in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION—Arizona is currently being invaded by millions of illegal aliens contrary to Federal law. If the Federal government is incapable of defending Arizon against invasion what is the Sovereign State to do?? Arizona has the duty to defend itself.
    US Constitution: Article I, Section 10 — No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, UNLESS ACTUALLY INVADED, or in such IMMINENT DANGER as will not admit of delay. — And the Constitution recognizes that as a duty of a Sovereign State such as Arizona. Arizona may unilaterally invoke this clause and recall to itself all the delegated powers required for defense and upholding the Supreme law. Hence it may (1) lay a duty on tonnagefor funding; (2) keep troops and ships of war in times of peace; (3) enter into agreements and compacts with other states; (4) enter into agreements and compacts with foreign nations; (5) engage in and declare war. All requisite powers of a Sovereign State in defense of itself. All border states currently invaded have the right of protection and the duty to protect and may all do so by invoking US Constitution: Article I, Section 10 as Sovereign States. Obviously this is no longer taught and no one mentions it when discussing the invasion by illegal aliens. It is to appear to have never been law, but it is law and it is Constitutional law to the core.

  • l chapman

    The pledge of allegiance was once something we children believed in, and for the most part still do, if it wasn’t for the words, with liberty and( justice for all ). These three words have no truth in todays society, justice is in my opinion, a process in which an idividaul or group is compensated, punished or held accoutable for their actions, the righting of a wrong, you can not tell me and convince me this applies in todays USA. OH, there is justice, but not for all, justice is for the person with the most pollitical or monetary value, no one has a voice without money or power, I love my country, I love my wife and children, but i do not agree with their views 100% of the time, today, i only agree with my country about 40%, they mentioned signing a petition to secede should be viewed as something treasonous, in my view, it is a right and sometimes an outcry to say, I am hurting,let me up, let me breath, after all, we are all sons of god, please take your foot off my neck, get the point, sometimes petions are the only voice left to some to make their disscomforts known.

    • Sandra Lee Smith

      It’s only “treasonous” to the traitors who are holding the power and don’t like being opposed. In fact, it’s within our Constitutionally- guaranteed rights! It’s also the REASON for the Declaration of Independence in the first place!

  • http://www.facebook.com/smendler Skip Mendler

    Geez, who’s the “SORE LOSERMAN” now??

    • navyjr

      That, sir, is Constitutional and historic FACT; it has nothing to do with being a “sore loser”; and such a childish attitude on your part labels YOU not Mr Livingston!

  • Liz110

    I am more than ready for this to take action. We need to take our country back from Obama. How we gonna let a “so-called” man that cant even salute our flag or take his hat off in respect. How is he gonna run our country when is running off to vacation with his family. Jealous..No! I want a person to run our nation, to take care of me an my family not entertain himself and his family because we are paying for it. If this is what we need to get rid of him then so be it. Give our freedom back. Give it back to the people and take it away from the government who doesnt even know what the hell is going on. So, this is what takes to let freedom ring again, then what are waiting for, sign me up. Dont like what I say, then Your a lost soul..Home Sweet Alabama…
    Liz110

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.