Peroutka Upset that Maryland Didn’t Secede From Union

Last year Michael Peroutka, the Christian Reconstructionist who ran for president for the Constitution Party in 2004 (a spot offered first to Roy Moore, but he turned it down), gave a speech that year in which he said that he was still upset that his home state of Maryland did not secede from the union before the Civil War.

In the speech, Peroutka tried to appeal to the neo-Confederate group by reminding them that his home state of Maryland “was below the Mason-Dixon line.” Referring to the 1861 arrest of pro-Confederate members of the Maryland legislature, he added, “And we would have seceded if they hadn’t locked up 51 members of our legislature. And by the way, I’m still angry about that.”

Peroutka went on to boast to the group that his children were carrying on his views, his daughter by refusing to play “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” in her school band and his son by referring to the Confederate battle flag as “the American flag.”

He added that his daughter, Elizabeth, who now helps to run the family’s foundation, was known by her peers as “Beth Booth” after John Wilkes Booth.

Even in 2004, Peroutka was extolling Moore, crediting the judge for inspiring him to run for office and boasting that he had Moore’s support because “we believe the same things.”

Yes, they do. They both believe that American democracy should be replaced with a Christian theocracy that would rival the Taliban in its oppression.

"The details are important, aren't they? For all I know, the text of the rule ..."

Bakker Declares Victory in Mythical War ..."
"She'd vote for Derrick Dearman, charged with six counts of capital murder in Alabama in ..."

AL Governor Thinks Moore Did It, ..."
"I don't want him elected because I don't like to mix politics and religion. The ..."

Moore Controversy Shines Spotlight on Evangelical ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • abb3w

    The language is unclear; Peroutka might have been expressing anger about the failure to secede, or he might merely have been expressing anger over the arrest of the Maryland legislature… which I admit seems one of the more legally questionable acts by Lincoln. (Contrariwise, while the charges might not have withstood trial, there seems evidence enough to have justified the arrest.)

  • otrame

    I don’t remember the timing, but I think Virginia had already gone South, so Lincoln, for some strange reason, was determined not to have another seceded state right next door. And yeah, Lincoln had some questionable tactics. Still, considering what other American presidents have gotten up to during wars, he was a positive sweetheart to dissenters.

  • colnago80

    Re otrame @ #2

    If Maryland had seceded, the District of Columbia would have been cut off from the rest of the North and completely surrounded by the enemy. Lincoln had no choice but to prevent the secession of Maryland by any means necessary.

  • lorn

    Damn, no wonder these people can’t deal with modern life, over 150 years after the fact they are still wandering around butt hurt and confused.

  • Ysidro

    I used to give tours at a house owned by one of the arrested Delegates. So I’ve found this part of history interesting. The arrest happened in August and I believe the firing on Fort Sumter was in April, so hostilities had already started. Losing Maryland and thereby surrounding Washington would be a disaster. And even with that, the amount of heavy handed acts to keep Maryland from errupting (suspension of habeus corpus, the arrest of any public supporters of succession or the confederacy, etc) was hard on the public.

    And all this shows is that time in American history was complex, horrible, and necessary. I seriously doubt Peroutka would agree with anything other than the “horrible” part. His ilk always leave out the part about supporting states that encouraged the enslavement of human beings.