You have a reading comprehension problem
I never once said that the 10th amendment was not applicable in the decisions to secede from the Union.
My statement was that it was not widely cited as a reason in the specific Secession ordnances (not at all in 11 of them) or the specific Justification documents written by 5 of the 11 secession conventions. Only South Carolina used the 10th Amendment as one of the reasons it seceded. Article 4 Section 2 clauses 2 and 3 show up more frequently in those documents as a reason than the 10th Amendment.
That was in response to this false statement by you:
"You claimed several of the seceding states cited the 10th Amendment as part of their justification for secession."
I did not. I made that claim ONLY for South Carolina's declaration.
*****************
>>Bull Snipe wrote: "I never once said that the 10th amendment was not applicable in the decisions to secede from the Union. My statement was that it was not widely cited as a reason in the specific Secession ordnances (not at all in 11 of them) or the specific Justification documents written by 5 of the 11 secession conventions. Only South Carolina used the 10th Amendment as one of the reasons it seceded. Article 4 Section 2 clauses 2 and 3 show up more frequently in those documents as a reason than the 10th Amendment."
South Carolina mentioned the 10th Amendment only to reinforce the fact that powers rightly belonging to the states and people were being usurped by the general government; but there was no need to mention it. The 10th Amendment is redundant in that the powers given to the general government are few and defined, and usurpation of unauthorized powers is tyranny, by definition.
I am at a loss to understand why this is even an issue among those who claim to support and defend the Constitution. Either Lincoln was a tyrant, or he was not. The Constitution "says" he was.
Mr. Kalamata