But they gave up some of their sovereignty when they became States. It is accepted now that States don't have the sovereign right to secede from the Union. So any act to do so would be considered little more than a rebellion and not a lawful act. Just like Virginia in 1861, you could hoop and holler all day long but the guns would have the last say.
Guns might very well accomplish what you say but it would be a terrible blow to all the principles we hold politically sacred. This view is absolutely not accepted. A couple of badly reasoned Supreme Court decision notwithstanding, a bedrock principle on which our country was founded requires consent by the governed. I consider that principle as accepted, right and just. I will quote it to you:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed,...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... in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I am aghast that you do not see the tension between the Prize decision and the decision upholding the legality of the Civil War with the underlying principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.
Even A. Lincoln recognized these principles - when it suited him. See the excerpt from this speech he gave to Congress in 1848 in connection with the Mexican War:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."
victorvalleyrepublicanclub.com
What you seem to think is appropriate is neither justice nor right, but the obeisance to, and acceptance of, naked power. |
