A Philosophical Question
 
From: cliftonpalmermclendon@yahoo.com
 
Perhaps the readers of SHNV can give me some insight.
 
Our ancestors believed — and rightly so — that if people were dissatisfied with the government, they had the right to change it or fire it. (Thomas Jefferson said it much more eloquently in the Declaration of Independence.)
 
Reasoning from that premise, Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and some other States fired George III and Parliament in the 1770s.
 
Again reasoning from that premise, Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and some other States fired Abraham Lincoln and Congress in the 1860s.
 
The truth of a principle is eternal. It does not depend upon time, place, or the outcome of a war.
 
If the belief that people can fire the government was true in the 1770s, it was also true in the 1860s, and it is still true today. The thirteen States were entirely proper in firing George III and Parliament, Mexico was entirely proper in firing the King of Spain, and Texas was entirely proper in firing the President of Mexico.
 
If the belief that people can fire the government was false in the 1860s, it was also false in the 1770s, and it is still false today. Texas should still be part of Mexico, Mexico should still be part of the Spanish Empire, and the States from Maine in the North to Georgia in the South should still be part of the British Commonwealth.
 
Since our ancestors believed that people could fire the government, it follows that they believed that States could secede, and that the nation was in fact divisible.
 
Why, then, do we at our meetings affirm that the nation is indivisible?
 
I look forward to hearing anything that anybody wants to say on the subject.
 
Clifton Palmer McLendon