[Me, correcting you] You've been reading Non-Sequitur; that's his theory. For which there is no historical or constitutional support. He also agrees with Adolf Hitler, that the States are mere creatures of the Congress, and in no way sovereign.
[You, refusing correction] It's irrelevant what the FR-late Non-Sequiturs may have believed.
No, it isn't, not when his position agreed 100% with yours. And was shown to be fascist.
What matters is, that's what historical figures such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln, amongst many others, all believed.
No, they didn't. Lincoln said he believed it -- to oppose the Southern States, which were right, and within their rights.
Madison's opinion about the problem of factional abuse of the federal government, of using the General Welfare clause to enact repressive and tyrannical legislation, varied. He never solved the problem of faction, by the way, and neither did his student, John Calhoun.
Madison advocated against secession for "light and transient" causes -- but his political sentiment never was written into the Constitution,
because the other Framers disagreed with his position and wanted to leave the secession option open.
That is why the Constitution contains no language on secession.
I can't defend Non-Sequitur, but highly doubt he (she?) would admit or claim to be a fascist -- or might somehow not understand the fundamental difference between a European fascist (National Socialist) and an American Conservative -- especially a member of the Free Republic.
But having seen your arguments here, I'm not so certain lentulsgracchus wouldn't happily falsely accuse anyone you disagree with of whatever word flits into your mind, right?
lentulusgracchus: "He also agrees with Adolf Hitler, that the States are mere creatures of the Congress, and in no way sovereign."
I can't imagine why Hitler might comment on this subject, but that argument was most notably made by Lincoln in 1861.
I doubt if Lincoln's views were influenced by Hitler, who would have been rather young then.
And Lincoln's argument was technically correct, since Congress issued the Declaration of Independence, which officially turned Britain's colonies into the United States.
So, Lincoln said: Congress, the Union, existed before there were states, and the action of Congress made the colonies into states.
Further, it was the Union under Congress' appointed General Washington which won War of Independence.
Therefore, Lincoln said: the states had no independent existence outside of the Union.
I'd say Lincoln's argument is a bit of a stretch -- that it's more a case of which came first, chicken or egg -- but the argument is a good antidote to the poison of states' unilateral secessionism.
lentulusgracchus: "No, they didn't. Lincoln said he believed it -- to oppose the Southern States, which were right, and within their rights."
Well, I'm amazed at your, what is the right word, "clairvoyance"? -- that you can read a dead Honest Abe's mind and know that he was lying when he said what he believed.
That is truly amazing, you must be one special person, lentulusgracchus.
Personally, I think Lincoln was telling the truth, and I agree with him.
lentulusgracchus: "Madison advocated against secession for "light and transient" causes -- but his political sentiment never was written into the Constitution, because the other Framers disagreed with his position and wanted to leave the secession option open.
That is why the Constitution contains no language on secession."
Madison's opinions were actually more influential that you want to admit.
For one thing, his letter to New Yorker Alexander Hamilton stopped New York from adding conditions to their ratification of the Constitution.
Madison's key words were: "The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States."
So, only Virginia's ratification might be called "conditional," because of its withdrawal language.
However, if you look carefully at Virginia's ratification, its language is nearly identical to that expressed by Madison himself, years later.
Madison said:
"compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties" or
"by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.".
Virginia's language says powers may be resumed: "whensoever they should be perverted to their injury and oppression."
So according to both Madison and Virginia, we're only talking about justified secession in the events of Federal usurpations, abuses, injury and oppression.
And not one of those conditions existed (any more than in 1830 or 1800) in 1860 when South Carolina first seceded.
So, in Madison's words, the Deep South began seceding "at pleasure."
It then attacked Federal forces and eventually declared war on the United States.
The rest is history.