Consultant Agreement: Fill & Download for Free

The answer is simple: because nationalism works.Arguably, no other force in history has been able to organize states as effectively nationalism.Germany in 1860.Germany 11 years later.That answer gives me no comfort. I grew up in the late 1980s and early-90s, and it was a time period in which nationalism was still “The Bad Guy” (TM). Slobodan Milošević, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and all the other “Bad Guys” of my childhood were all secular-nationalist dictators. Not only were nationalists seen as evil and/or petty, they were also seen as rubes. The 1990s and early 2000s were all about globalization, the expansion of the internet, and the elimination of tariffs in favor of the creation of free-trade blocs. Nationalism was just too expensive for the new global economy. Nationalism was for states that were actively anti-modern—states like the North Koreas, the new breakaway former Soviet Republics, and the remnants of Yugoslavia.If this perspective seems condescending, that’s because it is. But it’s simply part of the zeitgeist of that age—an era that was supposed to herald an End of History, a “New World Order” buttressed by the Pax America, and the belief that nationalism—especially in the context of newly formed or resurrected Eastern European nations—was simply a “phase.” Like adolescence.The question that was asked was: why is nationalism growing all over the world? With respect to the questioner, if you take the larger view of history, then the question should be: why did nationalism vanish at all?First we have to start with what nationalism actually is. Defining nationalism is incredibly difficult, because every specific brand of nationalism has its own unique flavor. Academic definitions offer no help or clarification. For example:“nationalism is a bias in favor of one's own nation. It may be manifested in sentiments, social movements, or state policies. More generally, nationalism refers to a way of constructing large-scale and especially political identities on the basis of cultural, linguistic, territorial, historical, and/or racial claims.”(The Dictionary of the Social Sciences)[1]“An ideology of political belonging to a nation-state emphasizing the exceptionalism of its citizens and prioritizing the interests of the nation-state over individual or minority group interests. Politically, nationalism is associated with rights of national self-determination, sovereignty, and patriotism. Anthropologists tend to examine the cultural dimensions of nationalism, as expressed in national symbols , flags, anthems, rituals , myths , and languages , and the roles such technologies play in fostering a sense of identification.” (The Oxford Dictionary of Cultural Anthropology)[2]In other words, nationalism is incredibly elastic. It isn't a homogenizing concept or movement like communism, liberal democracy, or an organized religion. It doesn’t care about what you believe or what you do. It only cares about who you are. This is because nationalism simply does on a grand scale what human beings do naturally in their everyday lives: create and join communities. All communities, whether you’re talking about a Dungeons & Dragons gaming group or a nation, try to create communities on the basis of commonality.The problem is that trying to create communities of millions of people is insanely difficult to do. Everybody has had that awkward experience at a meet-and-greet where they are trying to find common ground in a small group. Now imagine trying to do that for millions of people. There aren’t going to be many common denominators in a group that large—except for the things that human beings find both very simple and very important: language, race, religion, folklore, myth, and common history. Maybe all of these things will produce common ground. Maybe none of these things.Nationalism is as diverse as the nations themselves.If nationalism as a concept is opaque, its impact is crystal clear. At least politically, it is the most powerful social force since the days of Martin Luther and the Reformation. It allowed Republican France to seamlessly transform into Imperial France—all while fighting almost all of Europe at once for over 20 years. France was only defeated by a series of coalitions that (with great reluctance) unleashed nationalistic forces of their own. In the 18th century, the Kingdom of Prussia fought wars with stirring titles like: the War of the Austrian Succession, the Seven Years’ War, and—my personal favorite—the Potato War (also known as the War of Bavarian Succession). By 1813, Prussia was fighting France a war titled The War of Liberation.This exposes the tragedy of nationalism: the most effective way to fight a nationalistic state is with nationalism.Take for example the Second World War.I can already hear the objections. As Mark Lipse eloquently argues on this very page, the Second World War is the archetypal example of the failure of nationalism. It was a war waged and lost by the nations that were the most nationalistic—but not before killing 75 million people. All of this is true.However, while the Second World War does begin due to nationalism, it is also won because of nationalism.To prove the point, think of the Soviet Union. If there is any state that should be anti-nationalist, it is the Soviet Union. A core assumption of Marxist-Leninist philosophy is that identities based on nationality, religion, and ethnicity are all contrivances—most likely created by the ruling classes as a way to maintain their hold on power. Theoretically, a German factory worker and a French factory worker have more in common with one another than, say, the same German worker and Kaiser Wilhelm II. On the basis of that assumption, it is possible to create a state based on common class identity rather than national identity. This revelation is what leads to the dream of a worldwide socialist revolution where the oppressed working classes of the world would rise up and overthrow their capitalist and imperialist overlords…Vladimir Lenin sweeping the crowned heads of Europe into the dustbin of history.…And the revolution got as far as Poland; then it stopped. Pretty short as far as road trips go.Essentially, the newly created state of Poland managed to defeat the newly-formed Red Army in open battle.Propaganda poster of the Polish-Soviet War depicting the famed (though unarmored) hussars repelling Soviet troops.This Soviet defeat was not a fluke. This is stunning when you think about the Red Army during the 1920s and 30s. Prior to the officer purge in 1937, it had a number of innovative, highly competent leaders like Mikhail Tukhachevsky, and it was arguably leading the world in strategic thought. It was formulating what would later become known as “Deep Operations” as a means to break the deadlock of trench warfare, and it was pioneering advances in airborne and armored warfare. On the eve of Barbarossa, the Red Army outnumbered the Germans significantly both in tanks and in aircraft. In fact, one important bit of historical context that is often omitted when discussing the policy of appeasing Nazi Germany during the 1930s is that the Soviet Union was so militarily impressive that the Western Allies wanted to preserve Nazi Germany as a sort of “speed bump” to slow the inevitable invasion of Europe by Soviet forces.[3] (That wasn’t as deluded an assumption as some may think. Hitler, while no fan of Germany’s defeat in the First World War at the hands of the Western Allies, wrote a convenient little autobiography in 1925 entitled Mein Kampf in which he makes clear that the groups he hated most of all were communists, Slavs, and Jews. In Hitler’s mind, both could be found in large quantities in the Soviet Union).Propaganda poster reading: “Red Army's broom will sweep the enemy out!”[4] A riff on the earlier Lenin cartoon.Tragically, what distinguished the Red Army was not it’s red zeal, but the amount of red blood shed at the hands of opponents.I am cringing at the fact that I will be glossing over a great deal of historical context—the effects of Stalin’s officer purge, the strategic surprise during Barbarossa, and other factors. However, the fact remains that the working class solidarity of the Red Army was no match for the armies of Poland, Finland, and Germany forged by the fires of nationalism.This leads to what is perhaps one of the greatest paradoxes in modern political history. Under Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union—a bulwark of anti-nationalism—embraces nationalism in order to fight nationalism.This is when the war between fascism and communism evolves into The Great Patriotic War. Persecution of the Orthodox Church—historically a major source of traditional Russian nationalism and identity—ends during the Second World War.[5] In fact, the term Motherland, or Matushka Rossiya, is coopted from the Tsarists and becomes a term mobilized with all its patriotic connotations for the war effort.Propaganda Poster reading: “For the sake of the Motherland, let's go forward, warriors.” Note the depiction of a warrior appearing to be Prince Alexander Nevsky of Novgorod in the background—a 13th century warrior-prince who repelled the armies of the Germanic Holy Roman Empire.The Soviet Union’s embrace of Russian nationalism also leads to an embrace of the very thing the Soviet Union was created in order to destroy—the legacy of the Tsarist state.In this poster, we can see the the Red Army and the Hammer and Sickle being linked to medieval and imperial commanders—most notably Alexander Surovov and Mikhail Kutuzov on the right side.It’s hard to quantify the impact nationalism had on the morale of Soviet forces. However, it’s almost a moot point because whether or not the appeal to nationalism produced military results, the fact is that Stalin was convinced that it would.[6]The Soviet example is the most dramatic, but not the only demonstration of the triumph of nationalism in the Second World War. Even the cosmopolitan British, who have historically looked on nationalism as potentially destabilizing to their empire and a way to make their United Kingdom less united, rally behind an unapologetic nationalistic leader: Winston Churchill.After the war, nationalism declines among the major belligerents of the Second World War (importantly though, not their colonies). For the defeated Axis Powers, the very myths that tend to create feelings of national solidarity—whether you’re talking about divine destiny like in the case of Japan, or Aryan racial superiority—are exposed as falsehoods. Also in the case of Germany, the nation itself is geographically dismembered between East and West—permanently ending dreams of Großdeutschland.The explanation for why nationalism declines elsewhere is more complicated. I think part of it is because of the collective revulsion felt towards nationalism, and the conviction that it was the primary cause of the Second World War itself. However, that’s not the entire picture, because nationalism has a chauvinistic logic to it. Therefore, if I am French, German nationalism is bad because it caused the war, but French nationalism is good because it is qualitatively different.Nationalism for me, but not for thee.To answer this question, why nationalism is effective. Recall that nationalism is simply the act of creating communities. It’s team building. Teams are most important in situations where survival is contingent on cooperation—like war or times of uncertainty. An article in Foreign Affairs reported that from 1816 to 2001, nation-states won 70–90% percent of all wars against non-nation-states—including empires.[7] Europe, the very continent that saw the birth of the nation-states and nationalism, would eventually create empires that covered most of the surface of the globe.Ironically, most of these empires (starting with Spain’s) would be rolled-back by groups that emulating the very nationalism that helped lead to their colonization in the first place. A strong sense of nationalism is, in effect, a state’s life insurance policy.If we look at the post-war environment, the two greatest superpowers position themselves as champions of ideology rather than nationality. The Soviet Union reverts to religious persecution and Soviet identity—especially since Russian nationalism would be a liability while leading a coalition of non-Russian states in Eastern Europe and Asia.In 1956, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev gives what is called “The Secret Speech” to the Twentieth Party Congress. Because it was given to every Communist Party official above the rank of peon, it was secret in the same way that something is secret when you tell it to everyone you know. The main thrust of Khrushchev’s attack is that Stalin was an apostate communist and had committed blasphemy against Marxist-Leninist philosophy. He doesn’t mention nationalism per se, but criticizes Stalin’s policies motivated by nationalism—including the deportation and repression of non-Russian minorities in the Soviet Union:“To return to and actually practice in all our ideological work, the most important theses of Marxist- Leninist science about the people as the creator of history and as the creator of all material and spiritual good of humanity, about the decisive role of the Marxist party in the revolutionary fight for the transformation of society-, about the victory of communism.” [8]Note the recapitulation of strong emphasis on communism—not only as a political force, but as an ideological one. Part of the appeal of the Soviet Union to nationalistic-revolutionaries throughout the world is that Marxist-Leninist philosophy rejected racism. Because most European Empires are built on notions of racial chauvinism or paternalism, the Soviet Union was a natural ally to secular-nationalists with vague communist flavor like Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il-Sung, etc.However, with a large chunk of the developing world under Soviet clientage, it was difficult for nations to embrace the freedom and independence that nationalism provides without endangering Soviet patronage. The same basic problem existed for nations supported by the United States and the other capitalist democracies.Unlike the Soviet Union, there is nothing philosophically incompatible between capitalist democracies and nationalism. However, the postwar era sees major declines in nationalism across both Europe and the United States. That was certainly not inevitable. Former superpowers like Britain and France attempted to maintain their independence and autonomy by reorganizing and reestablishing their old colonial empires.This reached a nadir in 1956 when Egyptian strongman Gamal Abdul Nasser occupied the Suez Canal—the most important capillary of the British Empire and a symbol of British dominance. Prime Minister Anthony Eden assembled a military coalition to retake the canal consisting of Britain, France, and Israel. Militarily, the campaign was a complete success. However, American President Dwight D. Eisenhower was furious over not having been consulted over the invasion. Fearful of Soviet intervention on Egypt’s side and the prospect of escalation, Eisenhower threatened financial retaliation against Great Britain if the campaign wasn’t halted.And the British caved…Part of that is because basically every nation but the United States loses World War II—at least on an economic level.The United States is the only nation on earth (as far as I am aware) to become richer during the war. With indemnities and the attainment of comparative advantages, it is not difficult to become wealthy long term as a consequence of war. But because of the destructive effects of war, it is very difficult to actually wage war and increase wealth at the same time. The U.S. managed this feat. It ends the war with almost 40% of global GDP, and almost half of the world’s heavy industry.After the war ended in 1945, all that economic muscle was explicitly used to beat nationalism to a pulp.It was taken for granted by men like Secretary of State George Marshall that it was really the existential crisis brought on by the Great Depression that drove individuals to embrace communism and hyper-nationalism. Therefore, the best way to prevent the spread of both would be to combat economic uncertainty.A rare image of George C. Marshall smiling. This is a man who valued his own independent judgment so much that he made it a point never to laugh at President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s jokes for fear of compromising his own independence.This led to the passage of a massive aid package earmarked for European states known as the Marshall Plan. In a speech, without specifically calling out nationalism or communism, Marshall makes clear that the plan is to deter the attraction of extremist political views.The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down. ... Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Any government that is willing to assist in recovery will find full co-operation on the part of the United States. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.[9]The idea is that economic interdependence would make war impossible. This idea was certainly not new. During the First World War, Woodrow Wilson’s appeal to international free trade in his Fourteen Points is less an argument in favor of laissez-faire capitalism, and more of a political one: nations that need each other can’t kill each other.Whether you are looking at the Marshall Plan, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the predecessor to the EU—the EEC, or the Bretton Woods System, you get a pretty clear picture. The architects of the postwar global economy were seized of the need to make sure World War II never had a sequel. John Maynard Keynes, destined to become the pontiff of economic thought until the later 1970s, said at the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944 that he hoped their efforts to reform the global economy would mean that “the brotherhood of man [would] become more than a phrase.”[10]The need for nationalism was also reduced by growth of collective security alliances like NATO. Even these were broadly anti-nationalistic in spirit. Preventing the reemergence of German nationalism was made explicit with the NATO Secretary General, Sir Hastings Ismay, declared the the primary purpose of NATO was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”[11] Remember, the primary attraction of nationalism is the fact that it helps mobilize and commit a population at war. If the responsibility for your nation’s national defense is suddenly the responsibility of all of Western Europe and the United States, then nationalism seems less useful.In the United States and Western Europe, the sense of national community forged by war was channeled towards less martial concerns. The continuation and expansion of Depression-era welfare programs are a byproduct of that sense of community. The high cost of these programs was offset by global economic boom that kicked-off after the Second World War. The destruction caused by the war stimulated a world economy that revolved around reconstruction. Unemployment was historically low, and in countries like the United States, programs like the GI Bill paid for millions of Americans to get university degrees in order to pursue high-tech jobs.In Britain, this combination of high taxation, robust social welfare, and steady economic growth later became known colloquially as the “post-war consensus.” The problem is that it was a consensus that rested on the extraordinary economic conditions that existed after the greatest war in human history. During roughly the same era, the United States discovered to its shock and amazement that as the economic boom slowed in the late 1960s, it was difficult to both expand the welfare state with Great Society Programs and fight a land war in Vietnam. When you add in the economic recession that hit during the early 1970s and the slump in global economic growth, the stage is set for the debut of these characters:After the massive global economic slowdown in the 1970s, the post-war consensus of Eisenhower and MacMillan gave way to the neoliberalism of Reagan and Thatcher. Welfare capitalism with its labor unions, robust welfare, high taxation, and industry was replaced by a move towards a sort of laissez-faire capitalism which saw the growth of income inequality, rejection of welfare, lower taxes, and de-industrializing economies centered around an increasingly unregulated financial sector.I still think that we are probably too close to Reagan and Thatcher to offer a historically dispassionate analysis. I’m also not economically literate enough to do so. I have no interest in arguing over the merits of Thatcher or Reagan’s policies. My only point is to say that they successfully shifted the political spectrum to such an extent that even their opponents accepted their basic arguments. It’s noteworthy that Thatcher and Reagan were not replaced by socialists (or at least New Deal Democrats) like Michael Foot or Walter Mondale, but by capitalist converts like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton—the latter declaring that the “era of big government is over” in 1996.[12] In the United States, income inequality has become a bipartisan trend. It’s an oft-repeated statistic, but in the post-war period, a CEO’s salary would be 20 times that of an average worker. Now it is roughly 400 times that figure.Nations depend on the construction of communities. The problem is that if you want to empower the rugged individual as a way to grow the national economy, sometimes you get a nation of individuals—not a national community.What’s fascinating about capitalism and communism is that they are both materialist in outlook. Both look at the source of human happiness in material terms. Their core disagreement is over the means to achieve that happiness.It’s not a trivial disagreement. You don’t nearly nuke the world and fight a Cold War for almost half a century over a trivial point.Both, however, engage in idealistic beliefs about human nature. Communism, like most revolutionary ideologies, assumes that human nature can be altered to temper pesky annoyances like greed—which can unravel the entire economic system. Capitalism leads to the celebration of individual drive and achievement, even when that achievement is at the expense of the community as a whole.Material prosperity is an important source for happiness. However, humans evolved to cooperate with one another—in communities—in order to obtain that material prosperity.[13] We had to. If you look at humans (especially this human), we are ungainly, bony, weak, bipedal mammals with small teeth, puny muscles, and slow legs. To compound the problem, we also have young that require long gestation periods, and they are biologically almost helpless for almost a decade after birth. The only way we survived was to develop cooperative behavior during the late Pleistocene Era. As an article posted by The Evolution Institute on the evolution of human cooperation explains:Why did humans, rather than chimps, lions, or meerkats, develop such exceptional forms of cooperation? The answer lies in the human cognitive, linguistic and what physical capacities that made us especially good at all of the above, and more. These capacities allow us to formulate general norms of social conduct, to erect social institutions regulating this conduct, to communicate these rules and they entail in particular situations, to alert others to their violation and to organize coalitions to punish the violators. No less important is the psychological capacity to internalize norms, to experience such social emotions as shame and moral outrage, and to base group membership on such non-kin characteristics as ethnicity and language, which in turn facilitates costly conflicts among groups. [14]In other words, human tribes in the Pleistocene used the same criteria to establish in-groups and out-groups as 19th century nationalists: language and ethnicity. In this respect, the political goals of Garibaldi and Fred Flintstone differed only in scale.Yaba Daba Motherland!Nationalism is the result of behaviors that are tied to our evolution. It’s not something that can be isolated as solely a problem of white supremacists or European imperialists.This is the unlikely face of nationalism. In the year 2000, Vladimir Putin was handpicked by his predecessor Boris Yeltsin, to be his successor. Putin was selected not because he was seen as a brilliant politician or particularly charismatic. Yeltsin simply thought that Putin’s perceived loyalty, consistency, and pull with the security services would protect him from prosecution after his retirement. To be fair, he wasn’t wrong.Putin’s Russia was a Russia of dead dreams. Gorbachev’s dream of a return to true Leninism was gored by nationalists across the Soviet Empire who rightly saw the relaxation of repression under Glasnost as an invitation to riot. The dream of meritocratic capitalism was crushed under the weight of a new ruling class of oligarchic business elites—many of whom were former Communist Party elites themselves. An economic collapse on par with the Great Depression in Russia did not help matters either. Finally, genuine enthusiasm for democracy evaporated in the midst of widespread voter fraud in the 1996 Russian Presidential Election.Russia had lost its wealth and its influence. Worst of all, it had lost faith in everything……except Russia itself.Putin literally and metaphorically embracing the Orthodox Church.From wars in Chechnya and Georgia, the revitalization of the Russian military and Orthodox Church, to the creation of explicitly nationalist political organizations, Putin’s Russia became a nationalist Russia.The consequences of this wouldn’t be apparent until 2014.In 2014, I was still a product of my time. Bad Guys (TM) were still the nationalists—the people so shortsighted that their sense of identity and empathy was based on factors that were mostly beyond an individual’s control.In 2014, like millions of people across the world, I watched as Putin unleashed his Little Green Men to seize the Ukrainian province of Crimea.I am embarrassed to confess that, even though I pride myself on knowing a little bit about history, I adopted the Whig view of human progress. How could such things happen in 2014?In my defense, I was in good company. American Secretary of State John Kerry accused Russia of behaving in a “in a 19th century fashion.”[15] However, recent Russian history taught something to Vladimir Putin that John Kerry couldn’t understand: the world of the 19th-century is more the norm than the exception.Putin realized that nationalism works. It will always work.…The question is, what are we going to do about it?Footnotes[1] https://www.oxfordreference.com/search?q=nationalism&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true[2] http://An ideology of political belonging to a nation-state emphasizing the exceptionalism of its citizens and prioritizing the interests of the nation-state over individual or minority group interests. Politically, nationalism is associated with rights of national self-determination, sovereignty, and patriotism. Anthropologists tend to examine the cultural dimensions of nationalism, as expressed in national symbols , flags, anthems, rituals , myths , and languages , and the roles such technologies play in fostering a sense of identification.[3] Appeasement - Wikipedia[4] Russian WWII Propaganda Posters[5] Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia[6] Soviet patriotism - Wikipedia[7] Why Nationalism Works[8] https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/115995.pdf?v=3c22b71b65bcbbe9fdfadead9419c995[9] Marshall Plan - Wikipedia[10] Harry Dexter White and the History of Bretton Woods[11] History of NATO - Wikipedia[12] https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/clinton-says-era-of-big-government-is-over-in-1996-state-of-the-union/2014/01/22/da7c0cb4-83b6-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_video.html?utm_term=.30c9d68e9af6[13] Culture and the evolution of human cooperation[14] The Evolution of Human Cooperation[15] Kerry: Russia behaving like it's the 19th century

Because it is false.In Hannah MacAndrews’ answer, she makes claim of a highly dubious and inaccurate nature.The Civil War was about slavery, full stop.This fact is supported by Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States of America, who, in his infamous Cornerstone Speech, stated[1][2]:The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution, African slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.This is further supported by the fact that constitution of the Confederate States of America itself defended slavery as a right[3]. From Section Nine of the Confederate Constitution:No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.It is finally borne out by the fact that almost every Southern state declared that slavery or the fear of abolition was a primary reason for secession. Below are but a few examples selected from the various declarations, articles and ordinances of secession of the Southern states.From the South Carolina articles of secession[4]:The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions.The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening [sic] them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.From the Mississippi ordinance of secession[5]:Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.From the Alabama ordinance of secession[6]:WHEREAS, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the Constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security; therefore,…From the Virginia ordinance of secession[7]:The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution, were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States,From the Georgia ordinance of secession[8]:The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation.And from the Texas ordinance of secession[9]:In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.…..We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.It is clear from these pieces of evidence that slavery was the primary reason for the secession of the Southern states, therefore bringing about the carnage that followed.There are some who may accuse that I have merely shown that a minority of the seceding states left the Union because of slavery. They will allege that the other seven of the states may have left because they cared about states rights.But if so, those seven other states could have quashed any attempt to defend slavery as a right in the constitution of the Confederate States of America. They did not.The simple fact is that the secession movement was driven by racists who thought that they had a right to enslave their fellow man, and who attempted to tear apart the Union in an attempt to preserve that “right”.Ms/Mrs. MacAndrews is furthermore incorrect in stating that secession, in of itself, was legal.She states:The Constitution:is an international compact among nine or more nation-states, whichestablished the voters of each ratifying nation-state, as the final authority therein. Andit did not unite the states as a single nation-state.This fact was suppressed by a continental coup of censorship and mass-murder during the Lincoln Administration, which established Totalitarian Democracy and Crony Capitalism under a rogue empire.From Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, writing in the 1798 Kentucky Resolutions:That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.Here is the proof from the facts of American history, from the actual documents:We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.--Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776And so each state was originally declared as a separate nation unto itself in 1776; and they mutually recognized each other as such.Next, they formed an international confederacy in which each state expressly retained this declared status:To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.--Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781Then, this declared status became official in 1783, thus making each state into a separate sovereign nation— equal to the nations of Europe:In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America,..His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.-- The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783And finally, the Constitution then made the electorate— i.e. the citizen voters— in each state, into the final authority over the individual nation-state; while government just became the hired help:We, the people [i.e. voters] of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.- -Constitution of the United States : PreambleSo each state was made a separate, sovereign nation unto itself, supremely owned and ruled by its respective voters; and they never united their individual nation-states, as a single nation-state.And that can’t be done inferentially, since a sovereign nation is its own final authority, while only a higher authority can make such an inference.As noted in US Constitution, Article VII:The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.And these conventions were elected directly by the voters of the individual state; not by the Congress or the state legislature.Thus:Each state’s voters,ratified the Constitution as the final rulers of a separate nation.Accordingly, as foreseen in the Declaration of Independence as a “self-evident truth that the Founders sought to effect:The government was established by the voters,deriving their just powers by consent of the governed, whothus had the right to alter or abolish it and institute new government.And the Constitution united the states not as a single nation-state,; but as an international union among 13 separate nation-states.So under the Constitution, each American state was established as a true democracy; i.e. wherethe voters held final authority, andsimply delegated authority to their subordinate agents in governmentThis is a historical fact.True democracy is where the voters have final authority over their nation.This is regardless of whetherthey choose to exercise it; orinstead choose to simply delegate it to subordinate agents to act on their behalf.The issue, is final authority belonging to the voters— not some middleman, which defines Totalitarian democracy…which unfortunately is what we are told is “democracy” today.……..And so each state was indeed a democratic nation, each experimentally proceeding with progress toward universal franchise; and thus the USA was an international union of individual democratic nation-states.This was an unprecedented experiment in human freedom…. in progress.Lincoln, however, declared supreme power to the federal government, under the following myth:Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.However, this is founded upon a gross misapprehension of the law.Madden states that Lincoln’s declaring the federal government to be superior to the states in the quote below, was founded upon a myth.Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.In the above quote, Lincoln merely asserts that since the Union is perpetual by law, no state can leave it[10]. It does not mean that the people of the United States are not the authorities from whence all power is derived. To make such an assertion is to misrepresent Mr. Lincoln’s words.Lincoln’s assertation that the Union is perpetual is supported by an examination of the facts.The Union was already in existence before the Constitution, which was just a reform upon the government of the Union. Owing to this, the founding principles of the government not superseded by the Constitution are still in place. Among these is a certain mandate from the Articles of Confederate, which states[11]:the Union shall be perpetual.If any state which had joined the Union could leave, then the Union would not possess that element of perpetuity. Were any state able to leave, all the states composing the Union would be able to leave, and if so, then the Union could be ended any moment. Therefore, secession is illegal.This fact is confirmed by the fact that a seceding state, being a party to the Union, would no longer be part of it, thus no longer being united with the rest of the Union. Thus the immortal compact binding them would not be perpetual, as that state would have terminated it.Furthermore, were secession legal, then it would imply that the Union were a confederacy, where a member state may enter and leave at will. Thus, nullification would also be legal.But nullification is not legal. In the decision United States v. Peters, the Supreme Court ruled[12]:If the legislatures of the several States may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals.We may additionally apply the judgements of the Court to secession itself. If a state can secede, then the Constitution is a mockery, since it has no real force in the face of secession. Therefore, if we apply the Court’s words because when a state secedes, it is its own nation, making laws in defiance of federal law and federal courts. Thus, it annuls the judgements of the courts and the Constitution, as it is no longer subject to either of them.But, what about the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions? Doesn’t that prove that nullification is legal? Doesn’t that show that your argument is invalid?Again, it does not.Firstly, under our constitutional system, the power to judge the constitutionality of laws in vested solely in the judicial system[13]. To quote from Article III[14]:The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish.Since the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, then what the Supreme Court decides, in adjudicating a case, is law. Therefore, since we have determined that under United States v. Peters, nullification and secession are illegal.We may additionally determine from the words of the Founding Fathers that nullification and secession is illegal.Here we consult one of the actual Founding Fathers who held the same beliefs as Jefferson. That man’s name is James Madison, and in his Notes On Nullification, Mr. Madison stated[15][16]:…[I]t follows from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State, as one of the parties to the Constitution; the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet of anarchy cannot be imagined….[I]s there any thing…from which a single State can infer a right to arrest or annul an Act of the General Govt. which it may deem unconstitutional? So far from it, that the obvious & proper inference precludes such a right on the part of a single State; plural number being used in every application of the term.There is nothing here which Mr. Madison did not pen himself. If one wishes, this passage can be looked up. The search will find that it does indeed come from an actual writing of James Madison.In a letter written on December 23, 1832, Madison declared[17]:The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it.And in a letter written on January 1, 1833, Madison stated[18]:I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in 98-99 as countenancing the doctrine that a State may at will secede from its constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it.….It surely does not follow from the fact, of the States or rather people embodied in them, having as parties to the compact, no tribunal above them, that in controverted meanings of the Compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide against the majority; still less that a single party can decide against the rest, and as little that it can at will withdraw itself altogether, from a compact with the rest.Therefore, we may conclude that from the words of Madison, nullification and secession are illegal.But that is a mere aside. Already, by the system that the Constitution established, the decision of the Supreme Court is justification enough.Now, some may say that Madison does state that there is such a thing as a rightful secession. Therefore, let us examine the secession of the South through his criteria.Madison states:A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it.We determine that for the secession of one state to be legal, it requires either the consent of all the other states, or an abuse by the federal government of its powers. Since the other states did not consent to the secession of the South, then we must establish that the federal government had abused its powers.Here, the argument in favor of Southern secession alleges that by attempting to rob the South of its “right” to own slaves, the federal government abused its powers.In the first part, this is false. Let us examine the Republican party platform of 1860. One will find that there is no mention of abolition within it, nothing which is against the right of the Southern states to own slaves[19]. The most opposed to slavery the Republican party platform of 1860 gets is to advocate for a ban of slavery in the territories, and that is no abuse of the powers of Congress. Congress, in Article Four given the power[20]:to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United StatesIndeed, Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory[21].However, I cannot but take issue with the argument that were the federal government to move against slavery, it would have been an attack against Southern “rights”. Slavery is nothing but the most vile, unconscionable, cruel, immoral, and evil tyranny known to man. Its very existence is animated by hatred, its foundations built upon subjugation, its very breath the crack of the whip, and its death was a step forward for this nation and for American democracy.Ms/Mrs. MacAndrews is further mistaken when she alleges that the United States is not legally a nation. This is entirely false, and can be demonstrated merely with the words of the Founding Fathers.For example, Madison, in the Virginia Plan, referred to Congress as the “National Legislature”[22]. He could not refer to a “National Legislature” if the nation in question were not a nation.This is further supported by the fact that constitutionally, the states do not enjoy the prerogatives of sovereign nations. To quote from Article One, Section Nine[23]:No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in a war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.All of these are things which sovereign nations regularly do. And all of these things are prohibited to the states. How can this be if they are their own nations? The only logical conclusion is that contrary to the assumptions of Ms/Mrs. MacAndrews, the several states are not their own nations. And if they are not nations themselves, what can they be but part of one greater nation, the United States, the departure of which would be illegal.Some may quote Madison’s words in The Federalist No. 39, using the statements rendered as justification for the idea that the United States is not a nation[24].It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.However, Madison uses quite a peculiar definition of what he refers to as a national act. He states:a NATIONAL government…[is] a CONSOLIDATION of the States.What is meant by a consolidation of the states? A consolidation of the states is one where the state governments are nonexistent. A national government, according to Madison, would do away with the concept of the states, merely consisting of the people on one hand and the national government on the other. Examples of these governments can be found in Great Britain and France.Madison expounds upon this statement later in the article, stating:Were [the United States government] wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the MAJORITY of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all.An example of this definition being used may be found later in the same article, where Madison states:The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character…..When one examines Madison’s statements in the context of his definition, one will conclude, as he did, that:The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.However, this does not mean that the United States is not a nation.In fact, John Jay, in The Federalist No. 2, stated that the purpose for convening the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was because[25]:This intelligent people….being persuaded that ample security for both [liberty and union] could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as one voice, convened the late convention, to take that important subject under consideration.How could he state that the purpose of the Constitutional Convention was to establish “a national government more wisely framed” if there was no nation for which a national government could exist? Ergo, contrary to the statements of Ms/Mrs. MacAndrews, we have established that the United States is a nation, solely by the words of the Founding Fathers.Our conclusions are confirmed by the legal understanding of the definition of a nation. Indeed, even by the pre-Civil War legal understanding of what a nation was, the United States meets the definition.According to the 1860 version of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, which, considering the fact that Lincoln took office in the year 1861, should be sufficiently free from the “corruption” of post-Civil War legal thought, the definition of the term nation is[26]:[an] independent [polity]; [a society] of men united for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by the joint efforts of their combined strength.2. But every combination of men who govern themselves, independently of all others, will not be considered a nation; a body of pirates, for example, who govern themselves, are not a nation. To constitute a nation another ingredient is required. The body thus formed must respect other nations in general, and each of their members in particular. Such a society has her affairs and her interests; she deliberates and takes resolutions in common; thus becoming a moral person who possesses an understanding and will peculiar to herself, and is susceptible of obligations and rights. Vattel, Prelim. §1, 2; 5 Pet. S. C. R. 52.We observe that by every part of this definition, the United States is a nation. It is an independent polity, a society of human beings united for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and what the dictionary refes to as advantage, by the joint efforts of their strength.This is confirmed by Article Three of the Articles of Confederation. which states[27]:The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.It is evident that the purposes of the entering into the Union were specifically for promoting the mutual safety of the states, hence the statement that the states entered into the Union for their common defense, and to promote the mutual advantage of the states, hence the statement that the states also entered into the Union for the security of their liberties and for their mutual welfare.This was reiterated in the Preamble to the Constitution[28], which states that the objects of the Constitution were to:…form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty….Bouvier’s Law Dictionary further elaborates on the nature of a nation, stating that in order to be considered a nation, a polity must:….respect other nations in general, and each of their members in particular.In this case, we need only cite a list of the treaties the United States has made. Indeed, merely the Pinckney treaty ought to suffice as evidence of this fact[29].It is clear that the United States is one nation, united and whole.Hannah MacAndrews states that her claims represent the facts of American history.She is wrong in that regard. The facts of American history show that the United States is indeed a singular nation-state, from which secession is illegal, except by a case of an abuse of the powers of the government, which is not applicable to the case of the South. The facts confirm, moreover, that the South seceded because it wanted to protect slavery.We cannot disguise these facts. The South really did secede because of slavery and it really was in the legal wrong by seceding. Any attempt to say otherwise is intellectually disingenuous and deceiving.The thesis of Hannah MacAndrews, as it stands, is incorrect.Footnotes[1] https://iowaculture.gov/history/education/educator-resources/primary-source-sets/civil-war/cornerstone-speech-alexander[2] Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech[3] Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861[4] Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union[5] Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession[6] Ordinance of Secession, adopted by the Alabama constitutional convention of 1861. :: Alabama Textual Materials Collection[7] Virginia Ordinance Of Secession[8] Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession[9] A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union[10] First Inaugural Address - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)[11] Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781[12] United States v. Peters[13] Avalon Project - U.S. Constitution[14] Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781[15] James Madison: On Nullification[16] Founders Online: Notes on Nullification, December 1835[17] James Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, December 23, 1832.[18] Founders Online: James Madison to A Friend of Union & State Rights [Alexander R …[19] Republican Party Platform of 1860[20] U.S. Constitution : Article IV[21] Transcript of Northwest Ordinance (1787)[22] Avalon Project - Variant Texts of the Virginia Plan - Text A[23] U.S. Constitution : Article I[24] Federalist No 39[25] The Federalist Papers No. 2[26] Law dictionary : adapted to the constitution and laws of the United States of America, and of the several states of the American union[27] Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781[28] Constitution of the United States : Preamble[29] Treaty of Friendship, Limits, and Navigation Between Spain and The United States; October 27, 1795

Let’s go through the list. Note these are my opinions as a 14-year-old. Many of these people I have never heard of and therefore my assumptions may be wrong. These are just my first impressions.Secretary of State:Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil CorporationHas decades-long business relationship with Russian President Vladimir PutinHas reservations on climate change and he did not view it as an imminent national security.Verdict: I can deal with him, provided he doesn’t screw up.Attorney General:Sen Jeff Sessions, R-AlaLongtime Trump supporter who campaigned with him throughout the electionSupports strict immigration enforcement and measures tough on crime.Could change how civil rights laws are enforced.Verdict: Scares me a bit… also supports exactly what Trump does basically.Education General:Betsy DeVosMichigan educational activist and GOP donorAdvocate for school choice and charter schoolsSupports Common CoreWants to privatize public educationVerdict: Mixed. I’m a Common Core supporter and I like the ability to go to a different school if I want (I used to be school-choice) but I don’t like the idea of privatizing public education. That’s a disaster failing to happen.Secretary of Health and Human Services:Rep. Tom PriceLongtime Obamacare criticOne of the first House committee chairmen to endorse TrumpSays repealing ACA would not leave millions uninsured.Verdict: As an ACA supporter, I will be opposed to him unless he comes up with an alternative that doesn’t leave people screwed.Secretary of Transportation:Elaine ChaoPreviously served as labor secretary to Pres. George W. BushWants to increase funding to rebuild America’s transportation infrastructure.Verdict: Sounds good to me. Our public transportation system sucks.Secretary of Treasury:Steven MnuchinWorked at Goldman Sachs as CIOFounded investment firm Dune Capital Management and entertainment financing company RatPac-Dune Entertainment.Use of offshore tax havensInitial failure to disclose almost $100 million in assessCompany he ran was overly aggressive in forclosing on homesVerdict: What I’m hearing doesn’t sound good but I haven’t hears any of his policies. No verdict at the moment.Secretary of Commerce:Wilbur RossBillionaire investor estimated at $2.9 billionFounder of investment firm WL Ross and Co. Ross, King of BankruptcyKey economic adviser to Trump during his campaign.Thinks US must free itself from bondage of bad trade agreementsAdvocates threats to impose steep tariffs on ChinaPrioritizes making changes to NAFTAVerdict: Not sure how I feel. Probably would not be my first pick.Secretary of Defense:Gen. James Mattis (Ret)Retired from Marines in 2013 after 41 years, including being in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kuwait during the Persian Gulf War.Recently served as head of US Central CommandIntegrated women into combat roles and allowed transgender people to serveWants to strike a tougher stance on Russia and a more supportive one of NATOVerdict: GoodSecretary of Housing and Urban Development:Dr. Ben CarsonRetired neurosurgeon(Fun fact: his children used to go to the school I’m going to now)Never worked in government or held any type of elected officeOversee fair-housing laws, development of affordable housing and access to mortgage insurance.Stresses individual effort and not government programs to overcome povertyFeels safety net programs are important.Verdict: Sounds good but why would you put a neurosurgeon in this role again?Secretary of Department of Homeland Security:Gen. John KellyRetired four-star general and former commander of US Southern Command,Has strong knowledge of border issues and drug trade in South and Central America.Wants to force Muslims to register with the federal governmentWould be responsible for the deportations and building the wallVerdict: Supports what Trump supports is what this comes down to. Would not be my first pick.Secretary of the Interior:Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-MontMember of Congress from Montana and retired Navy SealEndorsed TrumpDecides the fate of Obama’s rules that stop public land development, curb the exploration of oil, coal, and gas, and promote wind and solar power on public landsDoes not believe climate change is a hoaxVerdict: Doesn’t sound bad.Secretary of Energy:Rick PerryFormer Texas governorLead federal agency he wanted to eliminate but couldn’t name during a 2011 GOP primary debateRegrets suggesting Energy Department should be abolishedReversed previous comments denying human-caused climate changeVerdict: Thank you for smartening up. Sounds alright to me.Secretary of Veteran Affairs:Dr. David ShulkinServes as secretary of health for ObamaFirst VA secretary not to have served in the militaryVerdict: The fact he hasn’t been in the military before and he’s the first one makes me curious about what he has to offer.Secretary of Agriculture:Former Georgia Gov. Sonny PerdueRepublican governor of Georgia from 2003–2011Worked on Trump’s agriculture advisory committee during his campaign.Verdict: Not much known on his history. Sounds okay.Chief of Staff:Reince PriebusDealmakerDeparting chairman of RNCClose to Paul RyanVerdict: His connections will probably help.Ambassador to UN:Gov. Nikki HaleyChild of Indian immigrantsLittle international experienceCriticized the UN’s relationship with Israel and said Russia was guilty of war crimes in Syria.Verdict: Israel seems like a nice place and I wish people weren’t so opposed to it existing. As for my verdict… I’m not sure how I feel.Administrator of Small Business Administration:Linda McMahonCo-founder and former CEO of WWEAdviser to global businesses as part of APCO Worldwide's International Advisory CouncilServed on the Connecticut Board of EducationServes on the boards of Sacred Heart University and the Close Up FoundationTop donor to Trump through his campaignVerdict: Sounds okay. Also don’t know much about her policies so no real verdict at the moment.Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency:Scott PruittOklahoma Attorney GeneralCritic against the EPAFrames the EPA as an all-too-powerful agency pursuing an ideological agenda based on what he considers dubious scienceDisagrees that climate change is a hoaxCriticized federal environmental regulations, and emphasizes a states-based approach.Verdict: WTF. You’re giving him a position he doesn’t even believe in.National Security Advisor:Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.)Prominent campaign surrogate for TrumpHas been outspoken in his view of the threat posed by Islamist militantsVerdict: If he was general, he probably knows a thing or two about security… I hope.CIA Director:Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-KanRepresents Kansas’ 4th Congressional District and former Army officerDecides whether to undo a new CIA moderization plan and how to proceed if Trump orders a resumption of interrogation tactics for terrorism suspects.He would pursue information about Russian interference into the election.He does not endorse torture.Verdict: Does not sound bad to me.Director of the Office of Management and Budget:Mick MulvaneyConservative rep from SCProponent of deep spending cutsWould help provide guidance with Trump’s priorities, such as repealing ACA, overhauling taxes, and large investments in infrastructure.Verdict: Mixed as well on this. I wouldn’t say I outright disagree with the choice though.Labor Secretary:Andrew F. PuzderChief executive of CKE RestaruantsHas criticized Obama’s labor policiesWould be in charge of dismantling rules covering the work force of federal contractors.Verdict: Not sure. No verdict.Director of National Intelligence:Dan CoatsServed on Senate Intelligence and armed service committees while representing IndianaVerdict: Sounds qualified.US Trade Rep:Robert LighthizerServed as trade official under President ReaganVerdict: Probably most qualified person on this list.Chief Strategist:Stephen K. BannonRight-wing media executiveRepresents racist viewsVerdict: NOOOOOOOOOOSenior adviser to the president:Jared KushnerMarried to IvankaVerdict: If they’re close then I guess it’ll work outHomeland Security Adviser:Thomas P. BossertTop National security aide to Pres. George W. BushRuns rusk management consulting firmSenior fellow at Atlantic Council research instituteVerdict: someone else with experience? What a rarity!CounselorKellyanne ConwayCampaign managerBackground in pollingVerdict: They have history. It’ll probably work out.Special Adviser on Regulatory ReformCarl IcahnBillionaire investorFamed corporate raiderVerdict: Another billionaire? Jesus Christ. Well, if he knows what he’s doing then okay.White House CounselDonald F. McGahn IIIWashington lawyerVerdict: Lawyer sounds good.Director of Trade and Industrial PolicyPeter NavarroCritic of Chinese economic policiesDirect a new council overseeing White House trade and industrial policy.Verdict: Not sure. I’ll see what the council above does.Press Secretary and Special Assistant to the PresidentSean SpicerSpokesman for RNC and top aide for PriebusFrames messaging, responds to stories of the day, and briefs the pressVerdict: Pretty much anyone could do that so doesn’t sound awful.So final verdict? Couple of the people on the list I don’t mind. However most of them I feel like weren’t the best choices. Some of the people would’ve been more qualified in another position and some others weren’t even qualified to be in government at all. However some of them to me sounded fine and could possibly do a good job. I tried to be as unbiased as I could with this but that was a bit difficult.I would also like to leave this infographics[1]that describe the cabinet in a nutshell. I’m probably breaking Quora’s image policy, but I think the images speak for themselves:Whether that’s a good thing or bad thing is debatable. Personally I think more diversity and more ideas are better but the government only wants people with the same views.Hopefully these picks will do well because we’re stuck with them for the next 4 years.Footnotes[1] Everything you need to know about Donald Trump's cabinet, in 5 charts