So Texas walks away and the rest are screwed, to put it bluntly. I would love to know where in the writings of the Founding Father's you find any support for that kind of belief. What you describe is a scenario guaranteed to foster acrimony and hostility, and which guarantee a bad end.
Methinks, however, you are a nannystatist.
Methinks you don't think at all. You admit you know nothing about Lincoln, but that doesn't stop you from blaming every ill in the world on him. You know nothing about the Texas Constitution or the history of the rebellion, but have all the answers to how secession should be done. You think the Constitution is a club that protects you but which can be used to beat the snot out of other states with. You clearly have given no thought to the ramifications of your proposals or the damage they cause. But then again, few of you Southron types do.
It's just that Texans think they can. The rest have been bamboozled.
Or is it Texas who is bamboozled? Many of the ills of this country can be laid at the feet of the three Texas presidents we've had. And you think that having trashed the country you can just walk out.
What is your point? And what is your real objection to secession?
My objection is to your idea that only one side of the secession question has any validity. That you can walk out and leave damage behind you, and that's just too bad on the other states. True secession, as Madison wrote, requires the consent of both sides of the issue - those leaving and those staying. Anything else is rebellion, pure and simple.
Again, you are insincere. See my above post. I am specific in what I blame him for in the follow up. And you did not respond except by accusing me of accusing him of "blaming every ill in the world on him." silly.
My objection is to your idea that only one side of the secession question has any validity. That you can walk out and leave damage behind you, and that's just too bad on the other states. True secession, as Madison wrote, requires the consent of both sides of the issue - those leaving and those staying. Anything else is rebellion, pure and simple.
If a tyrant wrecks a country are the tyrannized responsible? By your reasoning, yes. Rather the opposite, all those who get out from under the heavy yoke are being responsible and showing at the same time others the way to squelch tyrrany, namely by giving the tyrant no subjects so that he is forced to inflict his wrath, ambition, and delusions upon himself alone.
Regarding the Founders opinions about secession, there is much diversity even from the mouth of the same person at different times. Indeed, secession is a difficulty. It's telling that it is not unambiguously not allowed. Why? Simply because it is a much more peaceable solution than revolution. But, you, no, you prefer revolution or tyranny. Which, pray tell?
The Declaration does come to mind. and, yes, certainly that fostered some hostility. Nevertheless, it was also one of our least bloody wars.
LET IT BE KNOWN THAT in my little war of secession or over its validity, I retract my accusation that you, non-sequitur, are insincere. After further pause, I now realize how far apart our perceptions of the reality and unreality of the modern mega state are. Yes secession has consequences. And yes I understand their gravity. On your part, you do not see how our noble experiment has been hijacked . . . . and not any time recently either. We are hurtling down a most unadvised course, to the consequences of which any secession and its fallout are preferabe.
Thus, before we go full throttle totalitarian like the EU, it's good to know we have a emergency brake and at least in word can ditch the nannystate. I think the consequences you named very minor. The worse is that it's very unlikely that our nanny will let her children go out to play.