[Poohbah]

The Articles of Conferadtion were not the laws of the land!

Wrong answer. They were.

They amounted to nothing more than the opinions of those who authored it, and the Articles of Confederation were never ratified by any state.

From Wikipedia:

"The Articles of Confederation were submitted to the states for ratification on November 17, 1777, accompanied by a letter from Congress urging that the document

     "be candidly reviewed under a sense of the difficulty of combining in one general 
     system the various sentiments and interests of a continent divided into so many 
     sovereign and independent communities, under a conviction of the absolute 
     necessity of uniting all our councils and all our strength, to maintain and 
     defend our common liberties . . .

The document only became effective as it was ratified by the states. This process dragged on for several years, stalled by an interstate quarrel over claims to uncolonized land in the west. All of the colonies rebelling against Britain ratified it by 1781.

Source: Wikipedia.

[exmarine]

I have to agree with you that there was moral grounds for the American Revolution, and I tend to agree that the case for secession was weaker from a moral standpoint. That is just simply the truth.

However, I don't believe you captured the proper meaning of "Perpetual Union". The founders believed the Union was granted by the favor of God (as clearly stated by Washington in his 1st inaugural), and the founders expressed the idea that Union would last as long as God willed it, not as long as they could "force" it, i.e. as long as an unconstitutionally over-reaching federal govt. can force it on all the States. They well understood that Union was predicated upon the blessings of Christian brotherly love, and "forced Union" is contrary to that Spirit.

Poohbah, I must note a disconnect here, however. You argued vehemently against my statement that the Decl. of Independence had the force of law (because there is no article or section number in teh US Code), yet now you argue that the Atticles of Confederation (a lesser document) also in the U.S. Code does have the force of law. Don't you see an inconsistency here? I could now demand that you show me the Section and Article number from the US Code or refuse to accept your assertion - but I won't. I know the A of C do carry some weight of law, and I won't mischaracterize their importance for sake of winning an argument, or out of pride.