We've all heard that the "under God" is not entirely fitting. Regardless, my question is this: If America's constitution clearly gives states the power to secede, then why does the pledge say "indivisible"? Perhaps the writer meant this symbolically, in which case he would be wrong in the eyes of many people; it could simply be propaganda. What is your take on this contradiction?

The Union is currently "indivisible".

The Civil War showed us that secession is not only frowned upon, but will be countered with military action. The Southern states had every right to secede. They cited their objections. They cited their right to leave the Union. They were denied.

The Pledge is not unConstitutional (and cannot be) since it is not a law. Forcing someone to say it might be unConstitutional, however.

I don't agree with the "one nation, indivisible" part at all. I do not and never have viewed "these United States" (as the founders referred to it) as one nation, but rather as a confederation of fifty semi-soverieign states. Amlord is right that the Civil War settled the issue of secession, but on that -- and only that -- I am convinced the wrong side won.

I would not say the Pledge is unconstitutional, since I see no consititutional reason to prevent states or local school boards from requiring whatever nonsensical recitations they feel like, but I do consider it pernicious propaganda, intended by its socialist author to undermine state's rights and promote worship of the Almighty Federal Government. So, not unconstitutional but I'm still agin' it.

I'll agree it isn't necessarily unconstitutional, but it clearly contradicts what the article says. Also, I can't say I'm convinced secession has yet been settled; the cause is bound to reassert itself eventually. As soon as I realized what the pledge actually meant, i stopped the flagwaving and refrained from pledging from that point on. Fellow classmates have even resorted to violence because of this (I am too tall for them, no worries), so in my eyes the propagandists have unfortunately done an uncombatted, good job of making many Americans flag-waving ones. Our system of government has similarities with old monarchies and dictatorships, but at least we have the illusion of two really different major political parties; both increase government size year by year, and their power is so much in transition that parties may as well not even exist.

Words such as "indivisible" have been with us even before the constitution. I've heard many pro-secessionist(meaning individuals who believe states have that right) have argued that the "firm league of friendship" statement in the Articles of Confederation gives states that right. I've scratched my head and doubt that was the case--primarily because the words "perpetual union" were widely used in the Articles of Confederation. How to reconcile the two differing notions? We were intended to be indivisible, but if there ever was a power hungry ruler who usurped out laws and became a 21st century American Hitler, then the states could act. The difference being, it would have to be a drastic action, not simply a disagreement over slaves or tariffs.


Just a question--where exactly in the Consitution is the right of secession? Please don't take this question the wrong way, I seriously want to know since the only thing that has to do with something like that that I can find, is Article IV of Article IV of the constitution.