Ron Paul: This weekend I got a couple of calls from the media asking me questions about Rick Perry, our governor here in Texas and the statements he made about possible secession. Now, he didn’t call for secession, but he was restating a principle that was long held and at least in the original time of our country, and that is that there was a right to secession.
Actually, after the Civil War, nobody believes there is a so-called right to secession, but it is a very legitimate issue to debate because all of the states that came into the Union before the Civil War believed they have a right to secede and New England in the early part of the 19th century actually considered it, and nobody questioned them about whether they had the right to do it or not.
Since the Civil War, it’s been sort of a dead issue, but he brought it up. It stirred the media and believe me, it really stirred some of the liberal media where they started really screaming about what is going on here. “This is un-American”, I heard one individual say, “This is treasonous to even talk about it.”
Well, they don’t know their history very well because if they think about it, it’s an American tradition. It’s very American to talk about secession. That’s how we came into being. Thirteen colonies seceded from the British and established a new country, so secession is very much an American principle.
What about all the strong endorsements we have given over the past decade or two of those republics that seceded from the Soviet system? We were delighted with this. We never said, “Oh no. Secession is treasonous”.
No. Secession is a good principle. Just think of the benefits that would have come over these last 230-some years if the principle of secession had existed. That means the federal government would always have been restrained, not to overburden the states with too much federalism, too many federal rules and regulations.
But since that was all wiped out with the Civil War, the federal government has grown by leaps and bounds and we have suffered the consequences, and we need to reconsider this. It’s not un-American to think about the possibility of secession. This is something that’s voluntary. We came together voluntarily. A free society means you can dissolve it voluntarily. That was the whole issue was about.
Just remember one of the reasons that Wilson drove us in unnecessarily into World War I. He talked about what we have to give, have every country in the world the benefit of self-determination, a good principle. Of course, I don’t think he really believed that. But self-determination is a good principle. It’s a very American principle, so to me it’s a shame that we can’t discuss this.
You know, it’s interesting that so many of us have been taught for so many years, and as long as I can remember from the first grade on up taking the pledge of allegiance that we have a republic that’s “indivisible” and we have been preached that and preached it. So therefore, there is no contest, no question since the Civil War that we have even the thought that this could happen.
But you know what a lot of people don’t talk about and they really don’t even know about is who wrote the pledge to the flag. The pledge to the flag came from, for instance, Bellamy, an avowed Socialist who wanted to put into concrete in the pledge this principle of being indivisible, and he did it, you know, for the celebration ironically 400 years of the celebration of the landing of Christopher Columbus, so it was in 1892.
I mean, the pledge of allegiance has not been here, you know, all our history. So I think it’s worth of discussion. I think people should discuss this because right now, the American people are sick and tired of it all and I think the time will come when people will consider it much more seriously is when the federal government can no longer deliver. That time will come when the dollar collapses.
No matter what they do and how many promises they have and how many bailouts they have, they can’t do it if the money doesn’t work. So then, the independence of the states will come back and it doesn’t mean that you’ll be un-American to even contemplate what might have to be done once the dollar crashes.
While this video was originally recorded on 4/19/2009, Ron Paul spokeswoman Rachel Mills confirmed earlier today (11/13/2012) that Ron Paul “feels the same now” about secession as he did in this video.
Processing your request, Please wait....
How so?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Really? Because it seems like Texas is doing worse than most other states in more than one way. And I don’t live in any state, by the way. I’m Swedish. I’m just interested in American politics.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
First of all, I don’t live in Texas and never have. I’m commenting on the situation as an uninvolved party.
Second, what state do you live in? Because if you don’t live in Texas, there is literally a 97% chance that your state’s economy is doing worse than Texas. In other words, America would be unequivocally worse off without Texas. The numbers don’t lie.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And then there’s the kind of people who just don’t agree with him.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
After what the Texan government said earlier this year (the stuff about essentially being “against free thinking”), the rest America would probably be better off without you.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL, there is no “creator”!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Secession is not American if you’re seceding FROM AMERICA, Dr. Paul.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s exactly what secession is.
“An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have a right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them.”
– James Madison
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
that is not what secession is!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We are becoming an authoritarian police state controlled by the centralized megabanks, that’s why there is talk of secession.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jeez man,Obama is a part of the global/corporate takeover and the push for world government. He hasdeclared to congress that he gets his orders from the UN, and that congress has no authority over wars or the purse. And how has he changed the way everyone pictures things?? His stance on many important issues is the same as Mitt Romney. He has no intention of reigning in the fed res, approves drone use and sanctions on iran, the NDAA which allows indef detintion of americans withou trial.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can’t use what to explain what is happening on Capitol Hill? Social media, or secession?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I certainly insult, but I back up my anger with facts.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I certainly insult, but I back up my anger with facts.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I do believe that talk of secession is immature. If the people can’t effect change in government then they aren’t trying hard enough. Look at Obama. He changed the way everyone perceives things by using social media. Why can’t people use it to explain what is happening on Capitol Hill? What do you think?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I apologize. You jumped in an I was confused about whom I was talking to. Your statement is still very generalized. I don’t know what that has to do with secession but more power to you.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t believe so. He merely stated that the US gov’t no more owns the States any more than the UK owned the US or the colonies owned the land that the American Natives lived on. We do not need a right to exist as a state. Each state has it’s own charter that is not owing to the government to which the States created in the first place. The treaty by the UK stated that it would honor our right to exist. The rest just stated that they still declared Canada as their territory and maritime rights.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Occhi said that under lleko1′s premise the US is still owned by the UK. That’s a bad analogy because the UK legally transferred territorial rights to the US.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I didn’t say the land belongs to the government. The government can force you to sell your land to them.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hahaha! Occhi never said it did. She was drawing an analogy to your statement about the gov’t owning the states and anyone seceding would be stealing. But say I go along with your statement to him and so the UK doesn’t own the US. Your proof is just an acknowledgement by the UK as to our right to exist as a sovereign nation. It doesn’t say anything about ownership so why state it?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I love the way you twist the idea of eminent domain. The 5th Amendment was written to PROTECT the rights of individual citizens not to declare ownership of private property at will. Clearly your Liberal leanings allow you to misinterpret the Constitution as you see fit. You have also indicated in your statement that private property does NOT belong to the gov’t since they are required to purchase it from you at fair market price and show a just need to do so. You have contradicted yourself.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, it’s impossible for the federal government to kick states out of the Union.
States aren’t bound to the Union. If every state consents to secession, then states can leave.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re splitting hairs. Are you saying its impossible? What you’re referring to is not having constitutional powers outside its jurisdiction. So if the people want out, as a state representative, it is their duty to represent the will of their people and leave. This notion that they are bind to the union unless they pick up arms, even if feds wanted the secession makes no sense.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Q: if they have the power to create and allow 37 more than the first 13 states, explain to me how they couldn’t?
A: the federal government only has the powers that the Constitution gives it. Art 4, Sec 3 states: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union”. Therefore, Congress has the power to admit new states into the Union. The Constitution doesn’t give Congress the power to expel states from the Union. Therefore, Congress doesn’t have the power to expel states from the Union.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Of course the federal government was meant to have power over us. It wasn’t meant to have ABSOLUTE power over us
Secession is a tool for strong states to bully weaker states into doing what they want them to do. Unilateral secession is totally illegitimate
“An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have a right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them.”
– James Madison
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re are not answering the question. How dose congress have the constitutional powers to allow states into the union, but dose not have the right to end them?
“To shew the absurdity — Congress have the right to admit new states. When territories they are subject to the laws of the Union. The day after admission, they have the right to secede and dissolve it.”
Andrew Jackson to Martin Van Buren, 25 December 1832
Bassett, Life of Jackson, II: 579-580
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The federal government can take your land any time it wants as long as it pays you for the land.
5th Amendment of the US Constitution:
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The UK doesn’t own the US.
Treaty of Paris, Article 1:
“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States…..to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof”
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Because the federal government only has the powers that the Constitution gives it. The Constitution doesn’t give Congress, or any branch of the federal government, the power to kick states out of the Union.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Of course they have the right to end union, if they have the power to create and allow 37 more than the first 13 states, explain to me how they couldn’t?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
.I know what Bush did, but what does that have to do with Ron Paul? Paul wouldn’t drag us into those wars. Also, Allowing Lehman to fail didn’t cause the recession, on the contrary it boosted confidence in the market over the following weeks. All of those banks dug themselves into a hole and didn’t decide to act until it was too late. The housing bubble they created is what caused the recession. You seem to have the idea that I support Neo-Conservatives (Bush etc.). I cannot stand them.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
.I know what Bush did, but what does that have to do with Ron Paul? Paul wouldn’t drag us into those wars. Also, Allowing Lehman to fail didn’t cause the recession, on the contrary it boosted confidence in the market over the following weeks. All of those banks dug themselves into a hole and didn’t decide to act until it was too late. The housing bubble they created is what caused the recession. You seem to have the idea that I support Neo-Conservatives (Bush etc.). I cannot stand them.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seriously? ‘I was talking about a modern situation and legal ownership of the land.’ You think the US gov’t owns each state???? Well, you could always skip google and quote the Constitution where it states that by joining the Union all states relinquish property rights. Or maybe they had to Purchase it from the gov’t. LOL
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When you buy the land that your house is on you pay taxes to the state. Capital Hill has nothing to do with it. I then OWN it. The government will only own the states when it overrides parts of the Constitution much like Obama does with Executive Orders.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Again I tell you that you are wrong. We are not a government divided into states. We are a Union of states that form a government. The government was never meant to have power over us. The threat of secession is a tool to minimize the governments power. It is your belief that in the government resides all power but you are wrong. Our Constitution is what gives us existence and limits government power. It is a shame that you think we owe anything to the gov’t as our reason for being states.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0