Originally published at Reckonin.com
Public officials in Minnesota – governor, attorney general, and mayor – are resisting enforcement of legitimate immigration law and encouraging their citizens to physically interfere with federal law enforcement. They have absurdly and perversely used States’ Rights arguments to justify their actions. There has even been ridiculous mention of the 10th Amendment which has been a dead letter for 175 years.
Not to be outdone in historical ignorance and distortion, the Republicans are taking them seriously. History professor V.D. Hanson, who became a celebrity Republican spokesman by superficially trashing Southerners as traitors, has just informed us that Minnesota governor Walz is a “Confederate.” Some other “conservative” writers have broadcast similar opinions.
Not surprising, since blaming Southerners for everything bad has been stock-in-trade for the Republican Party since its creation in the 1850s. The worst thing these people can think of to say about the Minnesota leftist insurgents is that they are “Southern.” Even though Minnesota is in every way probably the single most un-Southern State in the Union.
The historical misunderstanding of these “conservative” spokesmen is monumental and can only be explained by ignorance or malicious bias. The felon Republican celebrity commentator Dinesh D’souza started this nonsense a while back by calling the Democrats “the party of slavery and segregation.” That is true, but it is absolutely absurdly irrelevant to make that a reason for voting against today’s Democrats. This kind of superficial demagogic talking point is standard Republican talk. If these people had any shame they would not even pretend to be qualified to discuss history, but of course they have no shame.
When the Southern States seceded they elected delegates to a convention of the sovereign people. Both on the hustings and in the conventions the question was openly and vigourously discussed and secession won a majority of the voters. The conventions, just exactly like the conventions that had ratified the U.S. Constitution, repealed that ratification and were then out of the Union.
And of course States’ Rights and State sovereignty had been a major, perhaps even a majority, opinion in the entire life of the Union up to 1860, something Hanson and his imitators can’t seem to grasp. Secession was not revolutionary resistance to the federal government. It was a constitutional and democratic process until Lincoln declared that the States were simply gangs of lawbreakers.
Why can’t these people face the fact that the Minnesota insurgents are acting out of a Leninist playbook for popular revolt? They prefer instead to trash us and our forebears. Tim Walz is not a Confederate. He is more like John Brown who thinks his righteousness allows him to engage in crime.
The views expressed at AbbevilleInstitute.org are not necessarily those of the Abbeville Institute.
Truth, and nothing but the truth! Thank you!!
I can only assume the authors ideological myopia and disdain for the remnants of constitutional authority distribution must be based on what seems to be a case of anti-northern derangement syndrome. How else to describe this Lincoln-like capacity to see and justify powers for the central government that are plainly contrary to the explicit language and intentions of the (so-called) supreme law of the land, where there is NO delegated federal authority regarding immigration? I don’t know if this is yet another current example of ‘living document’ construction opinion or further evidence that the entire concept of “law” is a dead letter in the 21st century USA. Is this the universal reality in this country now; that ‘might makes right’ and the will of the powerful is the sole justification for rule?
Good article, thank you.
I have written an article on this issue entitled The Wrong Conclusion that I have been informed will be printed on this site. It is important to recognize that comparisons are not always accurate though they might seem to be for the uninformed.
Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for a clear-eyed view of the situation today.
And thanks for debunking the Left’s lies about our state, South Carolina, then and still the most rebellious state in these USofA; a leader in the US Revolution, and without which we would yet be a possession of Great Britain.
Yanks should be thanking SC for the likes of Marion, Pinkney, Moultrie, Hapmton, etc…
Yow! What is the Constitutional warrant for sending ICE agents, their facial coverings, their actions without concern of the rights of others (abductions and beatings and killings)? Trump calls a “national emergency” every week so he can disregard the US Constitution with heavy-handed actions. Hmm, and it just so happens that all states with ICE are Blue. Might the objection go beyond illegal immigrants and be also about intimidation by the “peace president”? All such national emergencies to cover for Epstein files, which if FULLY released, would show what we can reasonably infer from past actions (pussy-grabbing, hanging with Jeffrey, and checking up on teenage beauty contestants). This really is sad use of apologism and fit stuff for Fox….
Perhaps if you would set aside your TDS for a minute you could realize that ICE is enforcing immigration law, concentrating initially on expelling the worst of the worst — which murderers, rapists, traffickers, etc. you apparently are satisfied to have roaming our streets. This is entirely Constitutional.
I’ve often wondered why I have such a trial of a time pushing myself thru your typical writings. Here it would seem laid bare before us all now, that somewhere between penning something akin to “the psychological underpinnings of Jefferson’s favourite socks” and another similarly strained attempt, you’ve managed the explanation for me.
This is what our federal government is supposed to do – protect us from “outsiders.” I don’t agree with everything Trump does, but on this I most certainly do! GET ‘EM OUT!!
Like John C. Calhoun, I have always felt that the federal government should be very limited in its powers, but it should do well those things it ought to do.
Dr. Wilson, the problem as I see it (have seen it) is that even the things they were “allowed” to do, they do (have done) poorly. People in government are not, in my view, what is referred to often as the “best and brightest” but are, I believe, either the most weak-minded or the most dishonest.
i guess states rights applied to oregon and illinois to keep free blacks out?
minnesota has some pretty countryside. Duluth has a neat bridge, black forest inn in Minneapolis has some really tasty German cuisine. if they can create sanctuary stuff they should be ok to allow other states to keep out what they provide sanctuary to..with no mo federal moulah. heh.
Yes, it’s absurd on several levels. If Minnesotans were anywhere near consistent on the matter, I might have more respect for their position. Where were Minnesotans on the question, for example, when we in South were making lawful efforts to reclaim our *reserved* Constitutional powers to control or restrict immigration within our own jurisdictions, and only within our own jurisdictions? They were with the federal courts and their gutting of our duly enacted laws, that is where.