Secession a Travesty to the Constitution and Union

I have heard several arguments being put out there that what the South did was in their full rights as a member of the United States, that the Constitution was a contract that they could get out of at any time that they wished. But I have to ask, how much sense does this really make? What kind of government, in its founding document allow for such a thing as secession? The preamble to the Constitution itself states that its purpose is to create a "more perfect union" and secure liberty for those who follow. So why would such a document allow a state to leave the Union if it felt like it?

The Founding Fathers of the United States founded this Union because the Articles of Confederation had failed. The form of government that was strong state and weak federal wasn't working and they realized that something had to be changed. It ended up that they threw this concept of national government out an created a new type of goverment, one in which the federal government was given certain powers and the states others, including those not given to the states. But the Union of these states is what made, and still makes, America a strong country. The Founding fathers understood this. George Washington said in his Farewell Address in 1796 that the union of this country "ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear you to the preservation of the other." This union and the freedom of the people depended upon their standing together as one, not seperate states or confederacies. Washington later went on to say that "there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands." Any one person or persons who try to split the Union are not patriots, but liars and swindlers who only have their good in mind.

And what government would allow for its own self-destruction? Lincoln himself said this in his first inaugural address in 1861. "It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination." To allow, in a foundational document, for the dissolution of a Union would be to say that this will not work, so we are going to put an escape clause in so that we can get out whenever we feel that we have to.

The glory of the Constitution is that it protects the rights of the people and that it holds this Union together; it is the glue that holds the states together. When the states signed this document, they were saying that they had faith that this would work and that they would make it work. Americans were given rights; they could speak freely and move about freely. A system of goverment was created that would protect the rights of the people and not vest all power in just one branch. And the people were duly represented in Congress by men that they had elected.

So how can the breaking of this Union be constitutional? How can the dissolution of a country so painstakingly wrought and paid for in blood allow for its own termination? I submit that it cannot be constitutional. The south was still represented in Congress and could make their positions known if they had stayed true to the course. No amendment abolishing slavery would have been passed if they had stayed in Congress, for the needed majorities would never have passed it. By being impetuous and seceding, the southern fire-eaters trampled on the memory of Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Jay and our other Founders. They in essence said you were all wrong with this document that you wrote and this government that you created was worthless. Secession was the result of impetuous southerners who would not listen to reason. It was not patriotic in any sense of the word.