Replies

From The Federal Pillars series published in Massachusetts Centinel it could be argued that the individual States have a vested interest in preservation of their Union amongst themselves. Suppose only 9 states would have ratified? What fate would befall those states not ratifying? Would they have been forced at gunpoint into the Union?

That other yankee.. John Quincy Adams said it much better:

But this last of earthly powers is not necessary to the freedom or independence of states, connected together by the immediate action of the people, of whom they consist. To the people alone is there reserved, as well the dissolving, as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of conscience, binding them to the retributive justice of Heaven.

With these qualifications, we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every state in the Union, with reference to the General Government, which was exercised by the people of the United Colonies, with reference to the Supreme head of the British empire, of which they formed a part - and under these limitations, have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confederated Union itself.

Thus stands the RIGHT. But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.

If I interpret that correctly, Adams is arguing that its ethical for the people to seccede but it is immoral.

...that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of conscience, binding them to the retributive justice of Heaven...the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart.

It appears as if he considers the State of the Union to consist of all members and if Ringo wants out, or - heaven forbid Harrison - let alone merely Lennon (or least of all Paul), the Beatles would no more be a group; likewise, even the least of the States, e.g., CA, or NY secession (not even contemplating the horrors of R.I. departing) would require the individual States to confederate, attack Britain, and after its re-defeat reseat delegates for the Second Constitutional Convention to reform a new-improved perfect Union. Mind you, a more perfect Union is one thing, but that was the 19^th century after all, so a more-prefect more perfect-Union was definitely called for.

If one believes the concept this nation was formed by the grace of God, the onus of God's wrath respecting its dissolution falls squarely upon seccionists heads. Its one thing to revolt against tyranny, but do the principle reasons for seccessoin rise to the degree of egregiousness whereby that which was forged with the blood of patriots is warranted to be discarded so easily as yesterday's sodden fish wrap?

While I admire the Southern soldier's priciples of standing up for their convictions to defend their way of life, I find it abhorhent that the status quo being defended was predicated upon an egregiously inconsistant philosophy as that of the abomination of slavery in contrast to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence as being 'self evident' and unalienable rights of Man.

...far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other...

In one of the Federalist Papers it is mentioned about the quality of men necessary to be leaders of the Republic being formed and something about angels being governed by men due to their fundamental untrustworthyness and what not. The fact that the Southern secionists chose violance over more peacable alternative speaks volumes about how wicked the angels being governed actually are (and the strength of government necesary to keep 'em in check -lest they run amok causing havok everywhere).

Who's to say if the wife of a philandering husband is ethical by her throwing out all his possession on the front lawn and setting the whole gasoline sodden heap alight? Maybe, but the moral question is moot considering the possibility she meet her husbands friends, Smith, Wesson or Colt if his pristine Honus Wagner baseball card was consumed in said pyre.

You know, I don't condone spousal abuse, but I do understand what turns Mr. Hand into Mr. Fist.