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.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment