UNITY AT "ANY" PRICE?

A number of folks have asked me what I meant by my words, "Unity at ANY price is suicidal." It's really quite simple:

If union alone is the goal of Americans, and not the safeguarding of our traditions, the principles of dual state-federal sovereignty, limited federal authority, and protecting our liberties, then what good is such a union to a free man.

It is also important to note that our framers never suggested we would be--or, logically, should be--an "indivisible union", indivisibility being a fatuous and revisionist notion injected into our thinking in the early 20th century by a socialist. In fact, understanding the innate corruption of man, the consensus among our founders was that the republic they created would likely not last much beyond 1825. In truth, original meaning and intent were already under siege from the earliest years of our republic. Add Lincoln's War in 1861 and relentless Progressive subversion since the early 20th century and you have a constitutional republic in its death throes. In short , for over 150 years we've been spiraling into constitutional disorder and lurching toward authoritarianism.

So, that's what I mean by those words which, with each passing day, sound increasingly more painfully relevant. And, very frankly, I'm too old to embrace my overly optimistic Pollyanna side, a puerile facet which is always so readily inclined to ignore the menacing and divisive ideological winds besetting us and our once seemingly indestructible constitutional republic. For me, there is some special comfort and wisdom in dealing with reality. Unity at ANY price really is suicidal.