Challenging Another Phrase
In The Pledge Of Allegiance
by Jeff Daiell
A few months back, there was considerable controversy over whether the Pledge of Allegiance should include the words "under God". But there is another two-word phrase in the Pledge that I would like to challenge: "one Nation" (as well as the use of "Republic" instead of "Republics", and "indivisible").
Let's review our history to see if the United States are truly "one Nation".
* * *
First, please note that any central government among the colonies (with the obvious exception of the English Crown before Independence) was a creation of the individual colonies (i.e., the Continental Congresses).
Note also the wording of the Declaration of Independence: "are [not is] . . . free and independent States [not: a free and independent State]". Remember that back then, folks understood that State meant country/nation; indeed, even today many nations use the term State in their official names (State of Israel, State of Kuwait).
The Articles Of Confederation created a central government for extremely limited purposes, but did not alter the basic sovereignty of the States and Commonwealths. It called The Confederation a "perpetual" alliance, but did not prohibit withdrawal.
Note that George Washington referred to America as "a new constellation", not "a new star".
Now let's look at the process by which the members of The Confederation seceded from that organization and joined The Union.
Remember that the Articles required that amendments be approved unanimously by the States/Commonwealths, and there was no provision for replacing them with a new fundamental law for The Confederation.
But, when it was proposed that a new basic law be adopted, even the opponents of the switch did not challenge the legality of doing so — because a new alliance was being created.
Indeed, the Preamble itself says one of the new document's goals was "to form a more perfect Union", not "to make our Confederation more perfect". Also, the Preamble ends by calling the new document a "Constitution for" — not a "Constitution of" the United States of America.
Note also the wording at the end of Article VI, Section 1 — public debts are declared valid "as under the Confederation" — not "as under the Articles of Confederation".
Too, new States were to be admitted on a basis equal to that of the original 13. These politicians would not have accepted the dilution of their power (as each new member of The Union joined, each original State would have a smaller percentage of the votes in each House of Congress) if they thought they were creating "one nation"; instead, they recognized it as the inevitable consequence of forming a new federation.
Then there's Article VII: ratification. Once nine States/Commonwealths ratified the Constitution, that document took effect among those ratifying.
While it was obviously likely that all 13 would eventually join the new alliance, there was no guarantee — but the Framers were willing to take that chance. That is, they were willing to see two separate leagues of States/Commonwealths, if that turned out to be the result.
Further, recall that the dates given for each of the thirteen original States/Commonwealth's joining The Union is the date on which each jurisdiction ratified The Constitution — not The Articles. The Union was/is a separate alliance!
Now fast-forward, and let's look at Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. He was willing to allow the withdrawing republics to be essentially independent, as long as they paid "Danegeld" — tribute money in the form of taxes and tariffs. Hardly the stance of someone who sincerely considered the United States to be "one nation"!
Keep this in mind as well: in both 1860 and 1861, Constitutional amendments had been proposed to outlaw secession. Obviously, their sponsors did not believe secession was unConstitutional!
Finally, let's review the Constitutional aftermath of the conquest of the Confederacy by the United States. Although the Constitution was amended to abolish slavery — because nothing done by the Federal Government had changed the legal status of slavery in those States/Commonwealths which had not withdrawn from The Union — that document was not amended to prohibit secession, nor was the 10th Amendment repealed.
While it may be that a future attempt at secession was considered highly unlikely, it's doubtful that the politicians would have cared to take a chance if they truly thought any secession at all would have been improper. Rather, it's likely they did not want to close the door on that option for any Northern State/Commonwealth who might care to exercise it in the future (as some of them had indeed threatened to in the past).
And even the Supreme Court ruling that later (ignoring the 10th Amendment) decreed that secession was illegal declared that the Framers intended "an indestructible Union [not nation, not country, not — singular — Republic]".
Admittedly, political power all too often, as the mass-murdering dictator, Mao Tzedong, wrote, flows from the barrel of a gun. So the reality is that the Federal Government, having crushed secessionist sentiment on the battlefield, acts, and will continue to act, in arrogant disregard of the legalities cited above.
Still: contrary to the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance — an oath resulting, keep in mind, from a contest sponsored by a socialist magazine — the United States are not one nation.
Jeff Daiell is proprietor of Jeff Daiell Communications, the father of three superlative offspring, and active in the Libertarian Party. The opinions expressed in this essay are strictly his own. Comments may be sent to JeffDaiell@yahoo.com.
© Copyright 2004 by Jeff Daiell
Have a comment about this article or one of the others in this month's issue? Use our Respondere page to write to our editors.
TOP
| 
