The right to secede was settled when the Yankees won the War of Northern Aggression. That’s what we’re told. Yet, many are still talking about it. Was the North justified in invading the South? Is the union an irrevocable compact; a veritable deal with the Devil?
Progressives declare the U.S. Constitution is a living and breathing document, so much so, that it has become more of a suggestion than the law of the land. If that is the case, shouldn’t secession be back on the table?
Walter E. Williams wrote an op-ed about secession and the consequences following the American Civil War. Here is an excerpt:
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, "A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty -- in a word, secede.
The threat of secession was a valuable tool against federal tyranny; a tool that is badly needed in the Age of Obama.