11 votes

The Union vs the Constitution: A Critical Understanding for the Modern Rebel

This is an EXCELLENT synopsis. KUDOS and all credit to Weirami found Here
The Union vs the Constitution
(The following) is the basis for the war of 1861-1865.

The Constitution was ratified by the original 13 states to replace the Articles of Confederation. The states considered themselves sovereign at that time and that the Union was a compact among themselves to handle certain specific issues such as a common defense and a standardized trade system to govern commerce between its members.

In 1828 a high protectionist tariff was passed which hit states with economies based on international trade rather than trade within the Union. Being one of the former, S.C. refused to collect the tax because the Power to Tax was given to Congress to fund ITS needs, (and certainly) NOT to benefit one section of the Union at the injury of another. The Tariff of Abominations, therefore, was a nullity.
(but) A compromise was reached and the tax was slowly (to be) cut over the next 30 years. (subsequently) The international trading states (also, then) lost the ability to block a tax increase, probably forever. (precedence was now set)

As a result of the successful reform of the tariff laws, a supreme court judge from MA proposed a fanciful new political history of the Union: (that) The American people became 'ONE' at the time of the Revolution and therefore became the source of the Union, rather than the States. The federal government was (therefore) a product of the people and as a result: the states were never sovereign. Consequently, the States had no authority to nullify federal law or to leave the Union.

Lincoln and the Republican Party adopted this model of Federal supremacy; Lincoln declared the Union had the authority to use force to keep the states in the Union and to enforce federal law in states that refused to do so.

S.C. and other states dependent on international trade, in reaction to the Republican Party election, declared northern states in violation of the terms of the compact and implemented a nullification of (recent) Federal refugee slave laws, concluding the Constitutional agreement was broken; (and further) that the Union was void and themselves no longer bound to it.

Lincoln declared the Union perpetual and unconditional. Adherence to the Constitution (therefore) was secondary to the preservation of the Union.

Since then,
the Constitution has become window dressing for a country held together by the threat of violence. Last year, the Obama administration, in response to petitions requesting its attitude toward peaceful separation of states from the Union invoked Lincoln and the indivisible model of the United States. The Federal Government can do whatever it wants and the states have to accept it. Anything else is (declared) treason.

►So, the NEXT time you decide to declare your 'allegiance'
KNOW what 'indivisible' means:
(1) YOU are declaring the Constitution to be SUBSERVIENT to the Union
and that
(2) the Federal Government has supremacy over the States.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Never Illegal!

There had to be a specific constitutional prohibition on secession for it to be illegal. Conversely, there did not have to be a specific constitutional affirmation of the right of secession for it to be legal.

Why? Because the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There was no constitution prohibition on secession, nor was there a constitutional sanctioning of any kind of federal coercion to force a state to obey a federal law because to do so was to perpetrate an act of war on the offending state by the other states, for whom the federal government was their agent.

The arguments for the right of secession are unequivocal.

There is the constitutional right based on the Compact Theory, and the revolutionary right based on the idea that a free people have the right to change their government anytime they see fit. The Compact Theory views the Constitution as a legal agreement between the states - a compact - and if any one state violates the compact, then the entire agreement becomes null and void. Northern states unquestionably violated the Constitution on a number of grounds

Tenth Amendment

That's why I'm a Tenther.

Don't comply!
Nullify!

Freedom is my Worship Word!

"People create governments;"

Awesome read, goldenequity, and credit to Weirami.

Also great reading by Publius Huldah:

1. Rights come from God;

2. People create governments;

3. The purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us; and

4. When a government We created seeks to take away our God given rights, We have the Right – We have the Duty – to alter, abolish, or throw off such government.

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/sovereign-states/

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Deo Vindice

We will never surrender to this or any government that is not by the people amd for the people. The power of the people is best served by local control. Lincoln was a mass murderer and thug.

.. had to look it up :)

Deo Vindice (English: Under God, our Vindicator), was the motto of the Confederate States of America.

Treason, you say?

...it's all relative, isn't it?
For your continued reading, check this out:
"The arguments for the right of secession are unequivocal. There is the constitutional right based on the Compact Theory, and the revolutionary right based on the idea that a free people have the right to change their government anytime they see fit..."
_______by Gene H. Kizer, Jr.
link:
http://www.bonniebluepublishing.com/The%20Right%20of%20Seces...

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

from above link...

It appears that the original intent of an unquestioned right of secession was established by the Founders, took root and "flourished for forty years," then later a "perpetual Union" counter-argument developed out of political necessity when Northern states began realizing their wealth and power was
(1)dependent on the Union
and
(2)its exploitation of the South.

The Northern States

...were in a panic when South Carolina led the movement of Secession.

The AMAZING FACT:
New York had threatened to secede on various occasions previously;
They are:
The Louisiana Purchase
The Mexican War
The Admittance of Texas as a State

Virginia. on the other and, had various periods where the "constituents" seceded and formed Kentucky and West Virginia.

Isn't the internet wonderful?

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

thanks for your comment Danton...

I amended the post to show the intention of the author's meaning.. so please don't misconstrue that he is (at all) defending that posture of the current Fed position. :)
thanks for your link above... excellentness!!

No Problem

...glad to be on board here with ya.

Yeah, that link is awesome....discovered it years ago and only recently revisited it...surely a clearinghouse of information.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!