OMG, are you guys still fighting the Lost Cause?!
Sorry BroJoeK, but you’ll never win over the perpetually obdurate and intransigent nature of the Lost Cause Loser.
I’ve often heard the “Marriage Metaphor” used as a justification (of sorts) of the souths conduct in the Civil War. It attempts to analogize north and south like squabbling spouses. Its derivations and permutations include neglectful, abusive, and varying degrees of malevolent attributions applied to the various parties in a feeble attempt to “flavor” and influence the analogy. I always had trouble with the analogy. Now I think I know why.
When I married my first wife I considered marriage sacred and perpetual. I knew that we would have trials and challenges but always viewed it as a sincere commitment for the rest of our lives. I thought my wife did too. It turned out that her notion of marriage was more like “until the next bright and shiny opportunity comes along”. The absence of trust, honesty, and mutuality on such a fundamental and foundational element of our relationship ensured its demise.
I never realized until very recently that there are people who actually held the founding of our country in the same regard - that there were elements of our founders who, while signing the sacred documents that formed our great union, secretly held crossed fingers. I never considered it because it is too ridiculous and nonsensical to believe, but there it is and You Ain’t John Galt appears to be amongst its practitioners.
Reasonable people recognize the exceptional circumstances that existed between the colonies and the crown and paved the way for the formation of our country. Those circumstances have never existed between the United States of America and its citizens from the south. Many posters have attempted to paint a picture of hardship and exploitation of the south but all fail for one crucial reason - representation. Unlike our colonial ancestors who were literally at the mercy of the crown, the citizens of the south had representatives who spoke for them in Congress.
So, is there room for an interpretation of the founding of our country that treats the founding documents (and their signatures on those documents) like a magazine subscription that can be dismissed at will? Yea, I guess so. But only if I also recognize that some people are innate scoundrels that need to be stomped on from time to time to keep them “honest” and out of the silverware drawer.
Does that preclude a recognition of a federal government that is out of control? Not at all. The folks who look at Obamination and his Express Train to Oblivion and see grave danger for our Union are legion. Have we passed the Rubicon? Not at all. Did we pass the Rubicon in the events preceding the Civil War? Not until the south took the law into their own hands. Theirs was the precipitating event that caused the war with all of its bloodshed and damage and misery.
Honorable people who find themselves at a crossroads prevail upon the law to seek common ground and justice. They don’t slink around in the dead of might and drain the bank accounts. Honorable people don’t act unilaterally. Had the southern states gone to Congress for a redress of their grievances or sued for secession I might have some sympathy for their perspective. But they didn’t. And the consequences for their actions rest squarely upon their shoulders.
Great post! I only disagree to the extent that I can't find evidence of "bad faith" or "crossed fingers" amongst any of the Founders at that time. Everything I've seen which might be called "bad faith" came many years later.
To use your analogy -- I think the Founders were totally sincere, and "married" with every intention of a long term union -- to be ammended or abolished only through using the same peaceful and democratic procedures under which it was established.
Sadly, not all the Founders' "brat children" lived up to their high standards. ;-)