 Constitutionally, I think you and Lincoln are on very weak ground. First, I think you are reading your own definitions or at least current definitions into these documents and that you are attempting to transform preambles into laws.
If the union established by the Articles had been "perpetual" in the way that you imply, how is it that some states of that original union broke free to form a new union under the Constitution? If you recall, the Constitution went into force upon a super-majority of states ratifying it, but those states that did not ratify it (although they obviously did eventually) were still under the Articles. You certainly cannot mean that the states had no right to leave the "perpetual union" codified under the Articles?
The Constitution was indeed the charter for a "more perfect union", namely one under an agreed set of laws, restrictions, and procedures (not principles or abstractions). You mention the "more perfect union" and "domestic tranquility", and we might as well mention the promotion "of the general welfare" or the clause maintaining a republican form of government in the respective states. If you insist on turning these into laws or even goals that can be achieved by circumventing all the procedures, checks, balances, and specific restrictions that were the mechanisms of the union, then one could justify anything, right? Welfare, tranquility, union--any political program from the extreme left to the extreme right and back again could be justified under such "laws". Look at Soviet or Chinese constitutionalism or that of any dictatorship. Look at the destruction of the gold standard.
Or, think about how the citizens of California or Texas are denied equal rights under the clause establishing two senators for every state and representation in Electoral College based on congressional representation, never mind the lack of representation for citizens of the District. Shouldn't Obama stir from his dogmatic slumber and declare equal representation for everyone? And, if the courts or the legislatures should try to stop him, well, out with the army, and if citizens should "initiate" violence, then we will know who the bad guys are!
I am afraid that in this situation, you can argue from natural rights or from the Constitution, but not both. The Constitution simply does not offer quarter to your argument; I recommend natural rights. The problem then, of course, is, what are those rights and what means do we use to enforce them? I am very doubtful about "natural rights". As a teacher, on pain of humiliation, punishments, emotional manipulation, rewards, etc, those natural-born rights are suspended, if you like, in order for me to indoctrinate students in the ways of science, math, and grammar, and they are likewise forced to behave in a way that conforms to my interpretation of order. Their parents regularly conspire with me in breaching these supposed rights. Of course, we are not in the habit of looking at education or family in that light.
As for the South's "initiation" of violence, that is relatively meaningless. If the states had the right to secede, then the United States were obliged under the principles of their constitution to withdraw. If the United States as a foreign power refused to withdraw, then the CSA had every right to "initiate". That was certainly the judgment of the states of the Upper South, which were much less prone to the fire-breathing secessionism of the deep South--until Lincoln demanded that they invade the CSA.
Lincoln was right about slavery. That is hardly the conclusion of the matter, however. Commented 5072 days ago |
