Brother Joe continues to violate our informal rules against gratuitous pettifogging with pronunciations about “unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.”
Over time, Brother Joe has developed that little spiel by cobbling one word to another, and then, yet another. But does it really mean anything?
Not really, but let's look at his reasoning anyway.
According to Brother Joe “unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure” is no good. Doesn't meet Brother Joe Muster.
Well, how about “multilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.” No good either; doesn't meet Brother Joe Muster because it, too, is unapproved.
So what good is the word “unilateral” in the first instance? If something is unapproved, it is unapproved. Unilateral was just a word Brother Joe threw into the mix probably because it sounded good at the time.
What then to make of the alternate concept “unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at necessity?” Even “at necessity” doesn't meet the Brother Joe Muster because . . . well, it is said to be unapproved.
“Unapproved” and its lurking opposite, “approved”, seem to be the foundation words in Brother Joe's string of words. And that leads to the obvious question: who is the authorized approver?
I say not the King of England; not even the Strong Man of the United States.
Look here for the answer: “. . . it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes;
The founders themselves warn that governments should not be changed for any old reason, or, shall we say, at pleasure. It then goes on and states;
But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
So it should only be done after a long train of abuses and usurpations. Well then what is a long train of abuses and usurpations? The founding fathers set the example for us. They endured 11 years. from when the stamp act was passed in 1765, of continuing and increasing abuses and usurpations, in a system of government where they had no representation, until they declared their independence.
Here's a comparison between the 1776 rebellion and the 1860 rebellion. RW = the Revolutionary War, ACW = the American Civil War.
The rebelling party was a full member of the body politic:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had willfully and freely entered into the government from which it was rebelling:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had access to full representation on the national stage:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party had attempted to have their grievances redressed, and hostilities began before they declared separation and independence:
RW: yes. ACW: No
The rebelling party began their rebellion after losing a free and fair election in which they were a full participant:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear in their documents of separation that their main concern was protecting chattel slavery of the African race:
RW: no. ACW: yes
The rebelling party made clear their right to separation through war and de facto independence:
RW: yes. ACW: no
How are these conflicts remotely similar?