"In Order To Form A More Perfect Union..."

Opponents of secession invariably point to the term "more perfect Union" mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution as evidence that the founding fathers wanted our Union to be permanent and unbreakable. Likewise, they refer to the term "perpetual Union" in the Articles of Confederation to further bolster their position. However, in doing so, they tend to overlook the actual purpose of that Union which is to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Let us assume for the moment that secession is not an option for the states, that the Union is indeed perpetual, perfect, and permanent, and that the Constitution, under such an arrangement, is still the supreme law of the land. If Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution no longer applied to them, what recourse would the people have in maintaining the more perfect Union envisioned by our forefathers?

Placed in such a position, even the most ardent anti-secessionist would be forced to admit that according to the Second Amendment, the citizens of this nation have the right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a free state, and any attempt by the central government to usurp the supreme law of the land would be met with armed resistance. The colonists acted on this in 1776.

Now this is where we can get bogged down squabbling over semantics. Most people believe that the Declaration of Independence sparked the American Revolution, even though no government was actually overthrown. When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington, King George remained firmly ensconced upon the throne and England still retained her flourishing empire. It would be more accurate to say that the colonies seceded from Great Britain to form their own confederation.

Yet there have been those throughout history who have equated secession with revolution. Robert E. Lee himself once wrote, "Secession is nothing but revolution." Whether you agree with that assessment or not, secession and revolution are similar in the sense that both, in their most noble forms, serve as a remedy for government oppression.

Many of those who advocate secession as a viable solution to tyrannical government policies believe that it is up to the people of an individual state to decide for themselves when the federal government has gone too far. If they deem a federal law to be unconstitutional, they can simply refuse to obey it. This is known as nullification.

In 1832, South Carolina passed an Ordinance of Nullification in response to federal tariff bills that favored northern manufacturing over southern agriculture. President Andrew Jackson, however, would hear nothing of it. He equated nullification with treason and threatened violence if the people of South Carolina attempted to uphold nullification with armed force. The rift this created between the South and the federal government was an ominous foreshadowing of the war that was to come in 1861.

Most anti-secessionists today have sided with Andrew Jackson. They believe that talk of secession and nullification is nothing short of treason. They also believe that no one but the Supreme Court has the authority to rule a law unconstitutional, and if those nine individuals happen to get it wrong...oh, well, what can you do?

What they fail to realize is that the Constitution is more than the supreme law of the land. It is a social contract between the federal government and the people of the United States. And, like any other signed contract, it is morally and legally binding.

This contract is based upon the esteemed principle that the government exists only with the consent of the governed. As such, it is to be a government that is limited in its power and jurisdiction. In other words, this contract is not a living, breathing document — it is an ironclad agreement. A government violating such an agreement is illegal and is subject to nullification by the people.

Today, virtually every law that comes out of Washington is unconstitutional. Every branch of government has proven its willingness to exempt itself from the constraints of the Constitution time and again, yet we continue to accept such egregious acts of betrayal because of the strange notion that our precious Union is unbreakable.

Since the federal government has clearly violated the terms of this social contract and has broken the supreme law of the land, we must decide how long we are willing to work within a system that has contributed to the veritable demise of our Constitution. Do we allow our leaders in Washington to trample on our right to keep and bear arms as long as they don´t touch our right to free speech? Do we allow them to confiscate 50% of what we earn as long as they do not try to take 75%? The truth is, you cannot give up one right without losing several others.

In the end, we are left with a very perplexing question: how much betrayal are we willing to tolerate? The very government that was set up to secure the blessings of liberty has become liberty's worst enemy. Is it really too much to ask that those states no longer feeling bound by a broken contract be allowed to peacefully part company with those that wish to remain loyal to a renegade government?

Call it secession, call it revolution, call it whatever you so desire. I believe the true defenders of the "more perfect Union" envisioned by our forefathers are those who wish to break away from the oppression of an unfettered government and return to the constitutional principles that built this nation. If that were to happen, those who advocate a perpetual Union controlled by a government that has broken its contract with the American people would be free to revel, unopposed, in the pleasures of their statist utopia.

We need to recall the words of our forefathers if we are to understand the concept of the Union as well as our responsibility when the government betrays the trust of the people. The Declaration of Independence says:

Those who support secession as a remedy for tyranny are not the ones advocating the dissolution of a "more perfect Union." The federal government has been systematically dismantling that Union since 1865.

"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."
-- James Madison to Daniel Webster

"Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure."
-- Andrew Jackson
-- President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification

There is a reason why the slaveocracy - and their neo-confederate cheeerleaders - avoided the obvious truth that secession is indeed revolution, and the roots can be traced back to John Calhoun.

To Calhoun, preserving slavery was far more important than perserving the nation. But there was a major stumbling block he had to avoid at all costs, and it is found in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

When you are holding more than a third of your population in perpetual, hereditary bondage, those words - and the notion of a natural right of revolution that they embody - are extremely dangerous. As Thomas Jefferson said:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest. - But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation."

Calhoun attempted to obviate the problem of a natural right of revolution - accessible to all MEN - by transferring it to a collective right, in the form of "State's Rights," that was accessible only to White Men.

"Sovereignty" was just as much a collective right to Calhoun as it was to Karl Marx.

"...declare that you will never take the field unless the star-spangled banner of your country shall float over you--that you will not be stigmatized when dead, and dishonored and scorned while you live, as the authors of the first attack on the Constitution of your country!-its destroyers you cannot be. You may disturb its peace-you may interrupt the course of its prosperity-you may cloud its reputation for stability- but its tranquillity will be restored, its prosperity will return, and the stain upon its national character will be transferred and remain an eternal blot on the memory of those who caused the disorder."

God Bless You, President Jackson!

It is true that when the Colonies threw off the yoke of tyrrany they did not overthrow England. But after the treaty was signed, neither England nor the Colonies were the same. If even one state seceeded from the Union the remainder would not be the U.S., and neither would that state. Our strength is in our union, not in spite of it. It takes all of us working together, hashing out our differences, working through our problems, to make this nation as great as it is. If those who don't like it pick up their marbles and go home, home is not likely to remain a very good place to be.

Like it or not, we are all in this together. We sink or swim together. One day there may be two unions split by their differing social contracts, but I hope not. It would be the end of America. I don't want to see that, no matter how unhappy I may be with the America of today.

Shalom

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.