Conservative Politics Examiner asks "Is Secession Always Wrong"?

Unbelievable apology for the AIP's anti-American sentiments from conservative Amos Wright at Examiner.com

I swear, these people would make over Pol Pot (or Bin Laden) into something marvelous if he were on the GOP ticket.


http://www.examiner.com/x-847-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2008m10d14-Is-Secession-Always-Wrong

<snip>
There's an assumption going through the topic of Sarah Palin's (non)relationship to the Alaskan Independence Party that works something like this: Secession is wrong, bordering on evil, the AIP advocates secession, Sarah Palin broadcast a speech to the AIP and her husband belonged to it, therefore she is a close enough proxy for the AIP and is therefore wrong, bordering on evil.

But is any of that sound? Not even at the beginning.

Our collective reference for secession is the American Civil War, wherein we are generally taught that the South was an evil. But the secession of the Southern States from the Union is an example of secession, not the definition of it. So what's the definition? Let's try this: secession is a group's formal claim of independence from a federation or ruling State. It might not be the independence you like, but it's clearly the independence somebody likes. So you already have a question of imposing one set of morals and tastes over another. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's not.

America was founded on the right of secession. That's why Northerners were often very uncomfortable with the War Between the States. What exactly were they fighting for – to keep people tied to the United States? Didn't their great grandparents bleed to put a stop to that sort of thing. What was the essential difference between an England that kept Americans as subjects largely for economic reasons, and an America that kept Southerners as subjects largely for economic reasons?


(it continues with heroic examples of secessionists from the former Soviet Union, etc)

...that'd be A-OK with me.

I can just see them trying to hold their infrastructure together NO TAXES and their collective IQ of 90.

Personally, after the past 8 years, if we elect one more rethuglican government, I'd be ready to secede (less snowy and cold than moving to Canada).

That's why Northerners were often very uncomfortable with the War Between the States. What exactly were they fighting for – to keep people tied to the United States? Didn't their great grandparents bleed to put a stop to that sort of thing. What was the essential difference between an England that kept Americans as subjects largely for economic reasons, and an America that kept Southerners as subjects largely for economic reasons?

damn. Never thought I'd see that.

While you had your anti-slavery folks in the north who saw the war as a greater social war over slavery, there was a large group of people, on both sides, who saw the issue as being one of states rights. There were quite a few "northerners" who were against the war for the first year because they believed the southern states had the explicit right to go their own way.

It's not so much demonizing Lincoln as it is looking at the early history of the Civil War from both sides.

As for the original topic, as far as I'm concerned, the above discourse not withstanding, if secession from the Union was considered an act of War in 1861, it's damn well an act of war in 2008.

U.S. Army vs. Alaska National Guard.
Unlike Bull Run, that one would be over in a day.

Making him more or less equivalent to Rev. Wright. The association is closer than Obama and Ayers. It's a matter of giving the Republicans a taste of their own medicine, and teaching them a lesson.

Anyone wanting to be VP of the US should not be associated with any entity that wants to secede, whether secession is right or wrong. Choke on that, freepers.

I'm sorry but when you have AIP leaders saying that Palin had an open door policy with them when she was mayor AND as gov..there is a fucking relationship. When she tried to get one of them appointed to the Wasilla city council, it was a **relationship**.

There are posters' questions over at AK's mudflat's website if her polar bear pin that she has been wearing of late is a shout out to the AIP---their symbol includes a polar bear


http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/son-of-troopergate/#comments

(16:51:34) :
Oh…BTW in case you don’t know its “their” symbol…
from the bylaws of AIP:
1.02 Symbol

The symbol of the Alaskan Independence Party shall be a polar bear depicted with the Big Dipper and north star in the background. The party symbol incorporating these elements may be used on clothing, on pins, signs and other means for advertising and raising party funds.

I'm really surprised this paper is out of San Francisco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Anschutz

Political and Christian activism

Anschutz, a Republican donor and supporter of George W. Bush's administration, has been an active patron of a number of religious and conservative causes:

* Helped fund Colorado's 1992 Amendment 2, a ballot initiative designed to overturn local and state laws that prohibit discrimination against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation.<10>
* Helped fund the Discovery Institute, a think tank based in Seattle, Washington that promotes intelligent design and creationism and criticizes evolution. <11>
* Supported the Parents Television Council, a group that protests against what they believe to be television indecency.<11>
* Financed and distributed Christian films, such as Amazing Grace and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, for mass audiences through his two film production companies and ownership of much of the Regal, Edwards and United Artists theater chains. In addition, as a producer Anschutz reportedly required the removal of certain material related to drug use and sex in the 2004 film Ray because he found it objectionable.<12><11>


Now it's a republican organ grinder. Truly sad.

== oxymoron

...a good looking woman can get a lonely guy to say the STUPIDEST shit.

The civil war was fought because the South formed a Confederacy, which is un-Constitutional (Article 1, Section 10), then additionally committed treason (Article 3, Section 3), by levying war against the United States. Except for a base, initial request, they did not legally pursue secession. War was started by the Confederacy, even though they could have continued their secession efforts in a peaceful manner.

People discuss Palin's association with secession because she claims to love her country yet simultaneously seeks to leave her country.

But I doubt the writer cares much.

That's the reason hostilities started.

As you pointed out, they could have taken a peaceful route and probably been successful.
But they didn't, they opted to open hostilities.

It doesn't, however, change the fact that there were Northerners who didn't agree with the war, didn't approve of the war, and thought the south had an explicit right to leave the Union and who thought the Federal Government should end the war and sign a peace treaty with the Confederacy.

Edit: In fact, it was a group within the Democratic Party, the Copperheads, who strongly opposed the war in Federal politics. In 1863, Copperhead Democrats saw a huge boost in membership in the U.S. House of Representatives because the war wasn't going well for the Union, but the Unionist party caucused with the Republican party so the Democrats never had a majority in the House. Copperhead democrats were strong enough to ultimately nominate General McClellan as their presidential nominee in 1864 who ran on a peace platform which would end the war and allow the Confederacy to remain their own nation.In 1864, McClellan lost, in large part, because War Democrats changed parties and joined with the Unionists.