BJ: I will certainly grant you this much: many in the South incorrectly believed they could legally and peacefully secede. A study of history and of the Constitution itself would have shown them their errors.
"Errors?" That's historical revisionist bullsh!t. In reality, a "study of history and of the Constitution itself" provides no evidence of any explicit prohibition of the right of State secession. Quite the opposite, in fact (if you take the time to read the records of the debates in the federal convention, The Federalist Papers, the ratification documents of the several States, Amendment X, the public writings of Jefferson & Madison, Tucker's Blackstone's, etc., etc., etc.).
You're a bullsh!t artist, plain & simple...
Go back & read my argument in 2,173. In a nutshell, here's what it is:
In 1787 our Founders presented their new Constitution for ratification. It's basic principle was "enumerated powers" for the Federal government, all other powers retained by the states or people. A number of states were uncomfortable with this formula, and wanted a specific Bill of Rights adopted to protect American freedoms. This was done, with the result, all 13 original states ratified the new Constitution, AS AMMENDED.
However, there were a number of states' signing statements which were NOT adopted in the new Constitution, specifically, any reference to "powers reassumed by the people." These statements were REJECTED for inclusion in the Constitution, and they were the only statements which might even be interpreted as somehow authorizing unilateral secession, or unapproved withdrawal from the Union.
"You're a bullsh!t artist, plain & simple... "
You are a mindless insulter, and disgrace to the name "John Galt." Sign off. Drop it. Come back as who you really are, Stand Waitie Jr.