[jonestown]

That hardly qualifies as 'admitting that he was violating his oath of office to defend the US Constitution,' now does it?

Sure reads like that to me..

Rather, it is a declaration by a Southern legislator that the Constitution itself (Amendment X) reserved the right of secession to the States and their people...

Nothing in the 10th reserves the right to break an oath to defend our Constitution. They should have fought to preserve the Constitution in court, not to violate it by secession & war.

[stainlessbanner]

They should have fought to preserve the Constitution in court

Because the Supreme Court is always right and there is no such thing as activist judges.

[Who is John Galt?]

WIJG: That hardly qualifies as 'admitting that he was violating his oath of office to defend the US Constitution,' now does it?

j: Sure reads like that to me.

Be specific: what article, section and clause of the Constitution was he proposing to violate? If there was no violation of the Constitution, then there was no violation of his oath...

;>)

Nothing in the 10th reserves the right to break an oath to defend our Constitution. They should have fought to preserve the Constitution in court, not to violate it by secession & war.

Again, please be specific: what article, section and clause of the United States Constitution prohibits secession? Hmm? Absent that prohibition, or a delegation of power to prevent State secession to the federal government (feel free to quote that article, section and clause as well – if you think it exists), the 10th Amendment does indeed reserve the right of secession to the States and their people...

;>)