Posted on 08/15/2018 2:47:11 PM PDT by rey
The "one nation, indivisible" referred to in the pledge is not only unconstitutional, it's contrary to the entire idea of the America the Founders sought to create.
An Atlanta, Georgia, charter school announced last week its intention to discontinue the practice of having students stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance during its schoolwide morning meetings at the beginning of each school day, opting to allow students to recite the pledge in their classrooms instead. Predictably, conservatives were immediately triggered by this “anti-American” decision, prompting the school to reverse its decision shortly after.
continued below
(Excerpt) Read more at fee.org ...
Admittedly, the superficial criticism that no independent, free-thinking individual would pledge allegiance to a flag isn’t the strongest argument, although the precise words of the pledge are “and to the republic for which it stands.” So, taking the pledge at its word, one is pledging allegiance both to the flag and the republic. And let’s face it, standing and pledging allegiance to anything is a little creepy. But, then again, it was written by a socialist.
But why nitpick?
"One Nation"
It’s really what comes next that contradicts both of the republic’s founding documents. “One nation, indivisible” is the precise opposite of the spirit of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution ("under God" wasn’t added until the 1950s).
The government in Washington, D.C., is called “the federal government.” A federal government governs a federation, not a nation. And the one persistent point of contention throughout the constitutional convention of 1787 and the ratifying conventions which followed it was fear the government created by the Constitution would become a national government rather than a federal one. Both the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights were written primarily to address this concern of the people of New York and the states in general, respectively.
Moreover, the whole reason for delegating specific powers to the federal government and reserving the rest to the states or people was to ensure there would not be “one nation,” but rather a federation of self-governing republics which delegated a few powers to the federal government and otherwise reserved the rest for themselves.
By the way, the Bill of Rights as originally written applied only to the federal government and not to the states. Sorry, liberals, but the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee a “separation of church and state” within the states. It was written for the opposite reason, to protect the existing state religions of the time from the federal government establishing a national one and thereby invalidating them.
And sorry, conservatives, the Second Amendment wasn’t written to keep states from banning guns. Quite the opposite. It was written to reserve the power to ban guns to the states. That’s why most states, even those established after the Bill of Rights was ratified, have clauses in their own constitutions protecting the right to keep and bear arms. They understood the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, not the states.
If there is one thing that is clear from all of the above, the Constitution did not establish “one nation.” In fact, the states only agreed to ratify it after being repeatedly promised the United States would be no such thing, allowing the states to govern themselves in radically different ways, at their discretion.
"Indivisible"
Then, there’s “indivisible.” One would think a federation born by its constituent states seceding from the nation to which they formerly belonged would make the point obvious enough. But the Declaration makes it explicit:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, 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.
It would be impossible to exercise that right—that duty, as the Declaration later calls it—if the republic were indivisible. The strictest constructionists of the time didn’t consider the nation indivisible. Thomas Jefferson didn’t threaten to send troops to New England when some of its states considered seceding upon his election. Quite the opposite. And in an 1804 letter to Joseph Priestly, he deemed a potential split in the union between “Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies” not only possible but “not very important to the happiness of either part.”
The people advocating “one nation, indivisible” in those days were big government Federalists like Hamilton, whose proposals to remake the United States into precisely that were flatly rejected in 1787.
Proponents of absolute, national rule like to quip this question was “settled” by the American Civil War. That’s like saying Polish independence was “settled” by Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939.
In fact, it is precisely the trend towards “one nation” that has caused American politics to become so rancorous, to the point of boiling over into violence, over the course of the last several decades. This continent is inhabited by a multitude of very different cultures, which can coexist peacefully if left to govern themselves. But as the “federal” government increasingly seeks to impose a one-size-fits-all legal framework over people who never agreed to give it that power, the resistance is going to get more and more strident. If there is any chance to achieve peace among America’s warring factions, a return to a more truly federal system is likely the only way.
Getting rid of the un-American pledge to the imaginary nation would be a good, symbolic start.
You’re kinda weird.
The Pledge of Allegiance is un-American? Did someone cross-thread a link to DU?
Describe how the per-group self-governance would work.
Certainly, the Pledge is un-American for the new America comprised of” new Americans” from every corner of the world.
Not kinda.
This is a very disingenuous screed. In this context, indivisible doesn’t mean that the US can never be divided under any circumstances. It means will will stand together and not allow pretty issues to divide us and weaken or resolve.
But you probably know this.
People with too much time on their hands. Given all the problems we have today the Pledge of Allegiance is not one of them.
This idiot is clueless and has a poor understanding of history and motivation or is intentionally distorting it for his own personal ends.
The fact of the matter is that the pledge was established to act as a unifier for the nation - were a “united” set of states. While I agree that states rights are important and should act autonomously the fact is that they are part of a union and economically these states depend on each other for economic support and inter trade and successful trade requires both a common philosophy as well as regulatory authority. (this coming from a site supposedly devoted to economics).
TL;dr - the guy blathers on to support the atheists, communists and anti-patriots of the school.
So, the new magnet school will be using a quote from a poem by Rudyard Kipling?? That old Imperialist?? BWAHAHAHAHA!
I understand some of what you say BUT if we do not pledge to our country - why fight for it? We are asking citizens to join in and pledge to this country and these ideals for our defense and show solidarity against foes, foreign and domestic, and make this sovereign country a place for all of us. Otherwise we will fall.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the flag, the allegiance, the National Anthem, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any other thing about this country that I served and fought for...
Stick that in your book...
I’m going out on a limb here but both the Pledge and the Anthem came about over a hundred years after the birth of our great country. As a Constitutionalist, I would have no problem deleting both from common usage along with the hundreds (thousands?) of federal agencies added over the years. Freedom of speech works both ways; we are free to speak and we are not required to speak as well. I proudly served 22 years in the U.S. Navy with honor and that’s all I have to say about this. Patriotism is within each individual heart. I don’t need to wear it on my sleeve.
I heard a historian put things this way...
Prior to the Civil War, one would say; “The United States are.....”
After the Civil War, we now say; “The United States is....”
One simple change to an adverb. But it correctly describes what was then. And what is now.
(Grammar Nazi’s. Please correct me if I used the term ‘adverb’ incorrectly. Thanks)
Before the battle of Bunker Hill the “Liberty Tree” in Boston had two flags one said Liberty and the other said Unity. I suspect they are reading some communist history book or something. This guy is FAKE NEWS.
That's an accurate description of our downfall.
And I still say "these United States".
Maybe the link was to the Antifa site:
No borders! No wall!
No USA at all!
No kidding but that is true of the entire Bill of Rights. That changed through the judge-decreed process of “incorporation”. But given that all of the other significant rights have been incorporated so as to apply against the states, it would make zero sense not to incorporate this greatly important one as well.
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.