Another unpopular opinion - bear with me fellow conservatives

The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History:

"Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

"Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex."

I got to thinking about the Pledge issue a few days ago when a friend asked when the words 'under God" had been added. She remembered how confusing it was as she and her grade school classmates struggled to relearn it for the daily recitation but did not remember the year. It was 1954. I only learned it the way it is now since I started school in 1956.

When this controversy about "under God" being unconstitutional, I was inclined simply to take the view that such language was by no stretch an establishment of religion. Thus the controversy was "godless" ACLU vs. the USA. Curiously, I had very early become aware of Rev. Francis Bellamy's socialist intentions, but didn't factor that into my thinking. I also didn't think much would be lost by junking the Pledge altogether since I am an unreconstructed Southerner and have long objected to the inclusion of the word "indivisible."

In the course of looking up that date and drafting a reply to my friend, I began to expand my remarks to her into a much closer look at the Pledge. She wrote back that she must have touched a nerve. Well, it wasn't a nerve before, but it is now.

"Under God" is the best part of the Pledge, but it seems certain to me that the courts will junk those two words. So, let's look at the rest of the Pledge in detail to see if it is worth keeping.

"I pledge allegiance ... "

The inferior pledges allegiance to the superior. The knight of old spoke of his superior as his "liege lord" - the authority to whom he owed allegiance. In the philosophy of government that underpins our Declaration of Independence and our state and federal constitutions, the source of sovereignty is the people, not the government. If the people are sovereign, to what or whom might they be required to pledge allegiance? Nothing and no one on earth. (I am not speaking here of our duty to God, because that transcends nationality and mere human governments.)

"... to the Flag of the United States of America ..."

Why the flag? Contrast this with the oath the Constitution requires of public officers to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."

"... and to the Republic for which it stands, ..."

I grant that republic is the right word, rather than democracy, but we still have the problem that this republic is defined as the one with this flag, not the one that follows the Constitution.

"... one nation, indivisible, ..."

The formulation of "one nation" primarily defines our general government in its relations to to other nations. Under our federal system, we are citizens of of the states where we live and it is within those states that we exercise our political rights. And, of course, the general government is not indivisible. The Late Unpleasantness established no legal doctrine denying the right of the people of any state to withdraw from the union; it only proved that the particular correlation of political, military, diplomatic and economic forces during 1861-65 was unfavorable to those asserting their right of revolution as described in the Declaration of Independence.

"... with liberty and justice for all."

Nothing objectionable here as broad goals, but there is always the danger of confusion as to what such terms mean if they are divorced from such anchors as the Declaration and the Constitution. I am inclined to detect here a whiff of the "equality" which Bellamy dared not include in his original draft. The historical evidence seems to me to indicate that Bellamy was not merely concerned with equality of races or sexes, but with equality of economic outcomes in preference to equality of economic opportunities.

That's the way the Pledge of Allegiance looks to me. Let's junk the whole thing and say good riddance to bad rubbish.