Re: CHAT: Gale Norton (was Californian secessionists)

Quoting John Cowan <jcowan@...>:

> Andrew Chaney wrote:
>
>
> >>In any event, in the more conservative parts of the country,
> >>such as the Mountain states and the South, the pre-1860 notion
> >>of "state-sovereignty" is still surprisingly widely held, as
> >>Bush Interior Secretary, Gale Norton, reminded us all so
> >>stunningly this year.
> >>
> >
> > How so? What did Gale Norton do?
>
> She said that Confederate soldiers died to defend state
> sovereignty, and that they were right to do so, essentially.
This is what she actually said:

"I recall, after I had just gone through this massive battle with
the EPA on state sovereignty and states rights, visiting the East
Coast. For the first time, I had the opportunity to wander through
one of those Civil War graveyards. I remember seeing this column
that was erected in one of those graveyards. It said in memory of
all the Virginia soldiers who died in defense of the sovereignty of
their state. It really took me aback. Sure, I had been filing briefs
and I thought that was pretty brave. And then there were times we
looked beyond the substance. When we looked at the decision making
process. And [I] understood the 10th Amendment was part of that
separation of powers. It was part of what was supposed to guarantee
that our government would remain limited. What would guarantee our
freedom?" (Gale Norton, 1996 Speech to the Independence Institute)
<http://www.ems.org/bush_cheney/norton.html>

Here's another excerpt, apparently from the same speech:
"In the area of federalism, Norton has a lengthy record that
is hostile to many federal laws and regulations. In 1996,
Norton told a conservative group 'We lost too much' when
the South was defeated in the Civil War. 'We certainly had
bad facts in that case where we were defending state
sovereignty by defending slavery,' Norton said in a speech
to the Independence Institute, a conservative think-tank in
Denver whose board she sits on. 'But we lost too much.
We lost the idea that the states were to stand against the
federal government gaining too much power over our lives.'"
<http://www.ngltf.org/federal/wwnorton.htm>

Maybe not quite "that they were right to do so", since that
implies that she willingly turns a blind eye to the evils
of slavery. She here somewhat ambiguously seems to say
that using the states' rights argument as a pretense for
maintaining slavery was wrong. (What does "having bad facts"
mean?)

==============================
Thomas Wier <trwier@...>

"If a man demands justice, not merely as an abstract concept,
but in setting up the life of a society, and if he holds, further,
that within that society (however defined) all men have equal rights,
then the odds are that his views, sooner rather than later, are going
to set something or someone on fire." Peter Green, in _From Alexander
to Actium_, on Spartan king Cleomenes III