I didn't ask for an example of secession. I asked for an example of any act of a state which followed your interpretation of Article IV. If I understand you correctly, a state needed to:
1. petition the federal legislature for enact laws reagarding proof of an act
2. dawdle while such acts were being debated and passed
3. await the presidents approval of such acts
4. move forward with their planned act
It can be anything that a state has done in the history of our republic. Have at it.
You neoconcederates just don't like the Constitution do you?
We like the Constitution of the United States of America. Not #3Constitution.
You want to follow the rules of a monarchy rather than our Constitution?
Please show where I have stated that.
And they paid dearly and are still crying today about it.
Looking through the posts, it appears as though the victors are the ones doing all the crying.
If you're going to secede, make it the will of the people and not a few plantation owners and browbeating delegates.
Plantation owners were secure in their property in the Union, and were by and large against secession until they realized that it was unstoppable. I have not seen evidence of it, but it does not seem unlikely that their support was given to secession in order to prevent a massacre a la the French revolution. If you could provide facts either in support or denial of that hypothesis, I would welcome them.
I think it's covered.
A 2-minute search revealed this:
The Governor announces Illinois is submitting a formal request to U.S. Health and Human Services Sec. Tommy Thompson asking to launch the first federally-approved drug importation pilot program.
"Pilot program" means that it will be an act in Illinois. I guess Illinois could just ignore the Congress and go ahead and act to allow Illinoisians to get drugs from Canada but it might get messy.
We like the Constitution of the United States of America. Not #3Constitution.
I simply repeat what it says.
Please show where I have stated that.
"English law" above.
Looking through the posts, it appears as though the victors are the ones doing all the crying.
Winners have nothing to cry over.
Plantation owners were secure in their property in the Union, and were by and large against secession until they realized that it was unstoppable. I have not seen evidence of it, but it does not seem unlikely that their support was given to secession in order to prevent a massacre a la the French revolution. If you could provide facts either in support or denial of that hypothesis, I would welcome them.
From here:
Lawyers made up 40 percent of the membership and slaveowners about 70 percent, although most owned fewer than fifty slaves.
and:
The election of delegates needed all the legitimacy the Texas legislature could give it, because what evidence still exists indicates that the election procedures did not even meet the minimal standards of the day. Delegates were often elected by voice votes at public meetings. Unionists were discouraged from attending such meetings or chose to ignore the process because they considered it illegal. As a result the delegates overwhelmingly favored secession.
Doesn't sound like the will of the people, it sounds like a bunch of thugs.