The claim you made was. "If anyone who considers the secession of the Southern States to have been been unconstitutional wants to be historically (and legally) accurate, maybe they should read the United States Constitution (as it then existed) instead..." I'm showing that not only did a great many men read the Constitution and disagree with you, but among them was the man who, more than any other single individual, was responsible for creating the document in the first place.
Now, if what you actually meant was "I am John Freakin' Galt and my interpretation of the Constitution is the only correct one. Bow down before me, you lesser mortals.." then you should have come out and said it. Maybe we can find you a football stadium somewhere, put up some Greek columns, and then you can display your mighty ego for all?
Care to cite any of his public writings? Of course not. You wouldn't want to quote anything the gentleman said in public.
As you correctly note, Mr. Madison may well have been "the man who, more than any other single individual, was responsible for creating the document in the first place." And when he was selling "the document" to the American people, prior to ratification, he noted, in writing, in public, that the States would be justified in using military force (State militia) to oppose the new federal government by force, if the States thought it appropriate to oppose unconstitutional federal actions in that manner.
You can find it in The Federalist Papers. I've quoted the passage to you before. Apparently you have a short memory...
Now, if what you actually meant was "I am John Freakin' Galt and my interpretation of the Constitution is the only correct one. Bow down before me, you lesser mortals.." then you should have come out and said it. Maybe we can find you a football stadium somewhere, put up some Greek columns, and then you can display your mighty ego for all?
(Maybe your memory isn't so short - you seem to be carrying some kind of grudge... ;>)
Let me spell it out for you, one more time. The Constitution is written law. It means precisely what it says; nothing more, nothing less. Other documents from the same period support that interpretation. No where does the Constitution (as it existed in 1860-61) prohibit State secession. You disagree - which (IMHO) ranks you with the 'Roe v. Wade' types and their mysterious 'right of privacy,' and every other extreme liberal who seeks to 'amend' the Constitution via 'interpretation.'
Congratulations...