In April, several members of the Wisconsin Republican Party inserted a resolution in the State Party platform expressly recognizing the right of their State to secede from the Union. It was voted down May 3, but the move received national press. The Daily Beast published an article on both the resolution and modern secession movements in Vermont and Alaska, and the Drudge Report included a link to the story.
Predictably the resolution drew critics. A little known Democratic candidate for governor donned a make-shift Confederate uniform and canvassed the convention trying to get someone—anyone—to talk to him, particularly the media. Don’t we all know that secession is simply a code-word (a “dog whistle” as the moronic Left likes to say) for slavery and racism? He personifies American stupidity. Even cheeseheads who support limited government threw the idea under the bus. “No, sir,” they say, “I don’t support an idea that might actually rid our people of Washington oversight, heavy handed one-size fits all policies, or unconstitutional usurpation of power. I want to work within the system to affect change.” That plan has worked well so far, hasn’t it?
Americans from cradle to grave are told that secession is treason and un-American and has only been threatened or used to justify horrendous human rights abuses. I might agree if Massachusetts had pulled it off in 1803 or 1815 like they intended. Who would want to live under their brand of Puritanical nonsense?
One hit piece on the proposal in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel focused on the resolution’s author, Michael Murphy, the 41 year old leader of the libertarian wing of the State Party, and by default yours truly. Murphy embedded a video on his website I did with Tom Woods on the legality of secession, and cited the video as clear proof that his position is legitimate. According, however, to the esteemed “journalist” who wrote the Sentinel piece, my talks before the SCV and my articles critical of Lincoln invalidates my position. He obviously failed logic 101. The piece is classic ad hominem rubbish. The “journalist” cannot refute the idea of secession and does not understand the constitutional or legal underpinnings, so he attempts a character assassination. It would be funny if not so common among the media and the modern political class. If you can’t disprove the ideas of your opponents, call them names. It worked in kindergarten.