how did the opposing views interpret the declaration of independence of 1776 to support their arguments regarding secession
The opposing views on secession in relation to the Declaration of Independence of 1776 can be broadly divided into two interpretations: one supporting the right to secede and the other opposing it. Let's take a closer look at each perspective:
1. Supporting the right to secede:
Those who support the right to secede argue that the Declaration of Independence provides a precedent for this action. They emphasize the parts of the document that declare the right of the people to alter or abolish an oppressive government and to institute a new one that serves their interests. They interpret the declaration's assertion that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" as evidence that if a government disregards the will and consent of the people, the people have the right to separate themselves and establish a government that respects their wishes. Furthermore, they point to the declaration's discussion of the "unalienable rights" of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, arguing that if a government violates these fundamental rights, secession becomes a legitimate option to protect them.
2. Opposing the right to secede:
Those who oppose the right to secede argue that while the declaration did establish the right to alter or abolish an oppressive government, it does not explicitly grant the right to secede. They emphasize that the document was written in the context of the American colonies breaking away from British rule, which was seen as an oppressive system. They contend that the declaration's mention of "one people" implies a unity among the American states, forming a collective entity. Therefore, the argument follows that once the states ratified the Constitution and formed the United States, they relinquished their individual sovereignty and committed to a perpetual union, making secession illegal. They might also highlight the text's emphasis on creating a "more perfect Union" and "common defense," suggesting an intent to establish a unified nation rather than a loose confederation of independent states.
It's important to note that these interpretations have been subjects of continuing debate and have often been shaped by the particular political and historical context in which they have been invoked.