[Who is John Galt?]

I guess it does save time. Like not bringing forward arguments does for you.

Pardon me, because I have a 9-5 job: but how long has it been since you posted any kind of verifiable historical reference for your idiotic arguments? Days? Weeks?

I suggest that you start with the US Constitution - you obviously have never read it...

;>)

[x]

You don't have to come up with facts or links or quotes or documents if you don't want to. But when someone provides a clear and rational argument and you just dismiss it flippantly, it's a sign you're not being serious about this. When you go on to insult people, it doesn't do anything to dispel that impression.

But since you asked for some "verifiable historical reference," here's "The Error Of Secessionists" by John William Noell, a Democratic Congressman from Missouri. Like Toombs, Noell offered five propositions, but his were less tied to the institution of slavery:

1. That the Federal Government is a compact between the States, not as organized State governments, but in their highest sovereign capacity as communities of people.

2. That the powers of the various departments of the Federal Government have been arranged with special reference to the reserved rights of the States and people, and means are thereby provided for the protection of both.

3. That in case of any attempted or actual infraction or violation of those rights, the protection and remedy are to be sought through the means provided by the Constitution, and not by secession or nullification.

4. That in case all these remedies are appealed to and fail, and our grievances shall become so enormous that revolution and the overthrow of the Government are preferable to further submission, then we may resort to the ultima ratio of all people under every form of government - to overthrow by force the existing, and establish a new government to secure our safety and happiness.

5. That it is against the true policy of the South to dissolve the Union or secede from it; and that on the real question that divides parties, the South always did hold, and will continue to hold, under this Government, all the power necessary for her security, protection and equality.

Noell goes on to offer proofs for his propositions that many will find compelling. He cites the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, as "wideawake" did.

Noell wasn't an abolitionist. Indeed, it looks to me like he argues that secession is unconstitutional in the way that some personal liberty laws enacted by the Northern states were. In his view both violated the Supremacy Clause, and federal courts could overturn both.

Noell stayed in Congress as Unionist until his death in 1863.