Replies

I'm not arguing that secession wasn't an issue discussed PRIOR to ratification of the US constitution. That there was such discussion meant that the framers were aware of the issue, and by design did not include a mechanism for withdrawal from the perpetual union each former colony willingly entered into.

The idea that the confederacy was following some legal format when it attempted to withdraw from the United States is nonsense. Perhaps if one or several states took the matter of secession to the US Supreme court, they might have gotten a favorable ruling. But they fired on the US flag instead, and suffered the consequences.

BTW Samuel Colt was a Connecticut Yankee, so does that make you a Yankee lover...?

But they fired on the US flag instead, and suffered the consequences.

Actually, they fired on the US flag under the circumstance that it flew over a hostile army attempting to maintain its presence inside their borders. They fired on that flag at Fort Sumter the day after a union warship bearing it near the fort fired on a civilian confederate ship attempting entry into Charleston. The circumstances of the Sumter attack were further complicated by the fact that The Lincoln sent a fleet of warships to instigate a battle by attempting entry into the fort. Circumstances such as these place the historical event of Fort Sumter in a context that is lost in your simplistic account of events. In their light, no longer is Sumter a battle of the "bad guys" simply firing on the "good guys" as you would have it.

As for your assertion that the south "suffered the consequences" for firing on Sumter, such reasoning does not stand up to any test of moral judgment. It is absurd to suggest that an isolated firing on a single fort without any casualties provided necessary cause for the violent invasion and subjugation of the south over the following four years. Much to the contrary, The Lincoln consciously chose that path, the bloodiest path, among untold many options.

There was already a mechanism in place to withdraw from the Union ... the supreme authority of the people through the auspices of the 10th Amendment! Your argument means that we have always been in a Government-over-Man society. WRONG! The Framers set it up as Man-over-Government and the People are the ultimate authority ... not the Supreme Court ... not Congress ... not the President, which is why the 9th and 10th Amendments were crucial. The three branches of power were the servants of the People! If you throw in Natural Law, and the Inalienable right of "Pursuit of Happiness" your argument holds no merit.

"BTW Samuel Colt was a Connecticut Yankee, so does that make you a Yankee lover...? "

My ancestors came from Missouri, you might recall another couple of famous War of Northern Aggression irregulars that came from there ... Jesse James, and William Quantrill whom also favored the Colt Revolver. I can assure you that they were NOT Yankee lovers. I like the gun, but not the damnYankee stupidity that fostered the Aggression of the Northern States. I am a proud Southerner, not a slavery advocate, but an advocate of Individual Liberty and Freedom of Self-Determination.

That there was such discussion meant that the framers were aware of the issue, and by design did not include a mechanism for withdrawal from the perpetual union each former colony willingly entered into.

Oh that is such bull. If it was "perpetual", then why did some states specifically declare they could withdraw and reassume the rights they ceded to the union in the very documents that created the union? I have already pointed this out to you and yet you keep repeating your patently false bilge that it was understood to be "perpetual". A State's right to reassume the powers it ceded to the Union were very clearly stated when the union was created. Since the framers were aware of the issue, why didn't they prohibit it, or correct those states that declared the right existed in their ratifications? It is very obvious that it was not considered "perpetual", and that the right of withdrawal existed and was recognized. If it wasn't, then the agreement was fraudulent, and void. Read the ratification declarations of Virginia, New York, and Vermont. They very clearly prove that this "perpetual" nonsense is just that, nonsense. You have been misled by revisionists.