Ron Paul: Secession Is an American Principle

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.


  • I don’t want to argue, but you must understand that the Constitution was drafted in 1787. We’re in the 21st century now and Ron Paul doesn’t understand this. The demographics and population sizes are not even comparable, and California was a part of Spain. I think the Constitution is great, but certain aspects of it are simply outdated. Ron Paul is about as anti environment as it gets. He believes that pollution is only present if someone comes and dumps toxic waste directly on your lawn.

  • Your right,and thats also why I dont fear death.the suggestions I made where to improve quality of life.yes,death is the great equalizer.

  • Time to stop throwing a temper tantrum children. Isn’t even enough people requesting secession to take any of these loons seriously. They represent less than 3% of the population, hell no you can take a state away from this country because you refuse to grow up and act like an adult, no matter how much we’d like you to leave. There is now an online petition requesting that the citizenship status be revoked for those who request secession… go check it out.

  • Ron Paul you’re an official retard. You’re nothing but a hate filled old man that is anti progression in every possible way.Secession is anti progression!The gold standard does not work that’s why we went off of it during the great depression. Nixon took us off it completely. You want to talk about inflation, well what about deflation that’s what happens during a gold standard. Plus, there’s not enough gold in the world to fill a two story house, so how are you going to base the currency off it?

  • Since you’re so smart, tell me. How does one maintain a gold standard and quantitative easing (Keynesianism) at the same time? If money supply is being injected using the pump-priming method like you said, at some point, wouldn’t we have to stray from $35/oz gold standard? The dollar was removed from gold standard in 1970 because they know it was already worth less than $35/oz

    There are some people who are like exploding ROM. If you try to reprogram their worldview, they’ll self-destruct.

  • I understand you want general human needs, but that alone is subjective to different cultures. I would rather have money and have my options on how to meet my human needs rather than have a preset standard on what people think my human needs are. That is why we have money and that is why communist economies don’t work.

  • LOL. Gold standard and Keysianism are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. I know the how Nixon took us off the gold standard 1970. That’s is why the dollar depriciated. You expect the dollar to remain at $35/oz if you keep printing money?

    You don’t even understand what Keysianism, quantiative easing is. All you do is accuse people of being ignorant while having no idea yourself. Your the proverbial “computer ROM” here. As if I don’t have better things to do myself.

    Nice try with cheap ad-hominem tactics..

  • this is dangerous quasi-confederacy talk that erases any doubt that ron paul is not a racist and an ideologue

  • that is what I said in a summary. two parties can not represent the will of the people. Although it does tend to make decisions easier for stupid people.

  • a million votes is nothing compared to the population here in the united states. it’s barely enough to get your name on the ballot to be voted upon. America has yet to wake up, because if they did they Romney wouldn’t of been the presidential candidate.

  • The South might make some poor decisions if allowed to, but the positives would outweigh the negatives. That particular region would likely have some great ideas that other states could learn from, such as strict property rights.
    I’m from Georgia, by the way. I agree: there are a lot of southern rednecks in my state who don’t know much of anything, but I live in a suburb of Atlanta where the people are very educated.

  • Thats so dumb lol. Lets let a bunch of ignorant rednecks destroy the environment because they don’t understand or care about the consequences of what they do. The confederacy lost. The reason people don’t want the states to have all the individuality they want is because the south would bring the whole country down.

  • saying “que that” is redundant – only if your sense of grammar is not quite on point. It’s a shame to get pedantic when the basic ideas are of much more importance. I know that that may be hard for you to understand, but it is important. I think the real problem is that people don’t trust Obama’s motives. We ALL have big issues to face: Global warming is forecast to be more extreme than previously thought, and the human race can look forward to FAMINE if we can’t cooperate.

  • Ron Paul for President of The Republic of Texas

  • Yes, the EPA must go in order to be consistent. So must the Department of Energy. The Constitution does not permit either of them. I am in fact an environmentalist but believe that any needed environmental protections should be done at the state or local level. The federal government may only help to settle disputes that several states have with each other.

    By the way, if you really want people to accept your opinions, don’t use such filthy language. It makes you lose credibility.

  • Right…and this is the first time you’ve mentioned Bretton Woods. I say again, in what way does this support any of your points?

    (by the way, saying “que that” is redundant)

  • I live in the US, where Obama stopped the hemorrhaging of jobs (750,000 a month) and for some 3 years, there has been job growth. It’s been slow, a lot of which was caused by GOP governors refusing federal money to rebuild infrastructure, i.e., “shovel-ready” projects. Contrary to alarmists, Obama is NOT a dictator, so he can’t do this singlehandedly. He needs the cooperation of congress. Filibusters have been intentionally used to stop Obama from succeeding, to make political points.

  • For America, sign this petition:
    w h . g o v / X z v b

  • To counter your question with a question: how did gerrymandering affect the election in the HR? Hint: Even though a majority of house votes in the US were democratic, the House still has more GOP reps than Democrats. So likewise the electoral college gives Obama a substantial majority: 303 – 206. That’s how it works, no? If not for gerrymandering, Nancy Pelosi would be back as Speaker of the House.

  • No, I would be satisfied with a modicum of financial responsibility in govt. Were that to happen, then Texas wouldn’t have to bail Kalifornia out, when they go DO bankrupt, making the entire conversation academic to begin with.

    As for climate change, what do you think is causing the Jovian atmosphere to warm?

    Let me guess… Fracking?