Where Some of the Secession Talk Is Coming From
- Print print this page
- Discuss 16 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
"W e petition the Obama administration to peacefully grant the state of Tennessee to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own new government."
The Nov. 10 petition that Jason B. of Harrowgate launched has garnered more than 30,000 signatures (only about 0.61 percent of the adults in Tennessee, but 1.23 percent of the 2.45 million that voted).
It is easy to dismiss the petition, and the similar petitions on We the People, a White House-sponsored website, covering nearly every state, as the petulant anger of sore losers, or the expected background noise of a free, democratic society. It is, to be sure, a little of both.
And earlier this past week, after reading the Nov. 14 story in The Nashville Tennessean, I chuckled. Yet when I read the energetic and thoughtful, though often uncivil, comments on the story, I realized that postulating secession, and debating the historical precedence and philosophical foundations of stay-versus-go, was a civics debate far more meaningful and interesting than any of the conversations during the presidential election, and completely relevant to the "negotiations" surrounding the impending "fiscal cliff."
And with Monday having been the anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, the conversation is poignant.
One Tennessean commenter posted a quote from Andrew Jackson, who soon after his election as our seventh president faced a secession crisis. The Nullification Crisis dominated much of Jackson's first term and was caused when South Carolinians, supported by Jackson's vice president, John Calhoun, decided they could nullify federal laws on tariffs, and eventually any federal law that did not suit them.
Jackson, who was born in South Carolina and served as a messenger in the American Revolution throughout the state, was sympathetic to the economic challenges of the Southern states. But when faced with the threat of secession, he responded forcefully. On Dec. 10, 1832, Jackson lost his patience with Calhoun and the nullifiers in South Carolina, declaring the state was on the edge of revolt and treason.
"The power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state," Jackson wrote, "is incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."
And our local commenter posted Jackson's statement: "To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation."
Cooler heads prevailed in Congress to affect a compromise on tariffs before it had to vote an authorization to send federal troops to South Carolina.
Jackson, who was known for his bullheadedness, remained concerned about the tensions between the states and the union. Jon Meacham, who wrote a spectacular biography of Jackson, noted that in a May 1, 1833, letter, Jackson wrote: "The tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and Southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."
He understood his politics.
It was also illuminating to read how Thomas Jefferson was cited by both sides of the argument, a position Jefferson would have likely found comfortable and appealing. Jefferson was very conflicted by the need to empower a strong federal government, and the problems that could arise from it.
While the fulmination of secession is uncomfortable, questions about how the federal government has grown, whether it is too big, whether it can manage itself, and whether citizens can expect elected officials to restore a semblance of balance in our finances must be addressed.
An elected government that continues to spend more than $1.50 for every $1 it takes in should expect a restive and vocal minority. There has been too much sacrifice, by too many, not to heed the reasons that underlie the seemingly crazy notion of secession.
Frank Daniels III, part owner of The Pilot and cousin of Pilot Publisher David Woronoff, is the community engagement editor of The Nashville Tennessean. Contact him at fdanielsiii @tennessean.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
Courseaire 5 months, 4 weeks ago
The real question is: "If Tennessee succeeded from the Union, would anyone notice or care?"
JimHeim 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Apparently Frank is not familiar with Modern Monetary Theory. But then, the entire Congress seems similarly ignorant. More's the pity. We could use thoughtful answers to today's problems, but shooting ion the dark won't get it done.
packwilleat 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Jim ~ "modern day monetary theory"?? Oh, do tell.
TOYTIME 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Living WELL is the best revenge!
Thatcher 5 months, 4 weeks ago
packwilleat-- "Modern day monetary theory?" You haven't heard of it? Oh man...it's great! And it works. Let's say you earn $100k a year, and after taxes, you get to keep about $70k. Here's the secret: spend $400k a year...not just one year...every year! Just put it on a credit card. Nothing bad could ever happen because, after all, it's the "modern day monetary theory." Folks in Greece love it! And what's not to love? Cheers!
packwilleat 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Thatcher ~ I'm sure that is exactly what Jim has in mind. I'm also sure he would bulk if I said "gold standard". But just to get the ball rolling on monetary systems......................
http://mises.org/daily/4431
Thatcher 5 months, 4 weeks ago
packwilleat-- Great post! Even the Austrian heterodox economic model points out the lunacy of "deficit spending." JimHeim will not be pleased because, after all, government money is free. Right? Ha Ha! Cheers!
Thatcher 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Indeed?
packwilleat 5 months, 4 weeks ago
SPUW ~ if the time ever comes, make sure to hold up that sheet of paper. Hahahaha!
Thatcher 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Truer words have never been intentionally misspelled to disguise the author. Cheers!
packwilleat 5 months, 4 weeks ago
The "real" Abe Lincoln...........
http://thomaslegion.net/presidentabrahamlincolntheunconstitutionalpresident.html
Thatcher 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Amen to that.
packwilleat 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Haha... you think the civil war was fought over slavery.
packwilleat 5 months, 4 weeks ago
SPUW ~ if you choose to read this article you will find out what brought about the American Civil War and why it was fought. You might also to see some similarities to todays political differences...................
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html
packwilleat 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Unfortunately the white man is still actively engaged in enslaving and killing men of color. We just found more productive ways of accomplishing our ways of the past. I see welfare/entitlements as one of those means. What better way to oppress/suppress a group of people (whites as well)than to give them something for nothing in the name of "compassion". It outrages me that so many are willing to take the hand out. What I am is what I have earned with my own hands. There is pride and honor in being a self-made man/woman. Then we are still killing the brown man in the middle-east to expand our resources. They have every right to rebel, they want to live their life as they choose. But we continue to oppress them with our western influence. That might just be the way I see it, but someone has to look at it from the outside and analyze how we continue our oppressive tendencies.
OldSpook 5 months, 4 weeks ago
Can anyone imagine how "southernpinesupperwestside" will react when s/he finds out about the 65,000 black Confederate troops?
" It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?” Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that “biracial units” were frequently organized “by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids…”. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.”