Where were we?
Real high-class arguments, that's for sure. :-)
That's quite humorous, coming from someone who considers Wikipedia to be a 'reference' deserving multiple links (BloJo Post #2241), who accuses those who disagree with him of being modern-day slave owners (BloJo Post #2247), and who's fovorite argument in support of his opinion is "Yeeeeeee Haaaaaaaw!!!" (BloJo, too many idiotic posts to count). But thanks for proving another of my points - you're a complete hypocrite.
;>)
For anyone interested in this subject, I highly recommend: Bruce Catton c1961 "The Coming Fury" Volume One of the American Civil War Trilogy.
Sorry, BloJo, but that doesn't satisfy your Post #2233 requirement for documentation dating from "1788." As noted above, you're a hypocrite, who pushes double standards - just like any D@mocrat politician.
I'd count "Coming Fury" as "fair and balanced," since some of Catton's arguments I disagree with. From my perspective, he's slightly biased toward the Confederacy. But it is well-written -- history at it's best, imho.
Funny - many consider Catton to be a leftist, who is blatantly biased towards the 'statist' (as defined by Mark Levin) end of the spectrum.
We have seen here, ad infinitum, the arguments FOR secession, i.e.:
* that it is allowed by the 10th Amendment
* that it was provided for in the Virginia signing statement (also NY and Rhode Island),
* that Madison's Federalist 43 uses it as his argument against excessive Federal power
* that some Founding Fathers (notably Jefferson) wrote later favoring it.
None of which you have refuted, even with multiple links to irrelevant Wikipedia 'references.'
* and besides all that, those D*amn Yankees are just as despicable as WIJG's comments claim.
Just can't resist throwing in yet another blatant lie, can you, BloJo? But thanks for proving another one of my points - you're a liar (repeatedly, in print).
The legal arguments AGAINST unilateral, unapproved secession are probably best expressed in Lincoln's First Inaugural and his address to Congress on July 4, 1861.
Yes, let's look at a few portions of Mr. Lincoln's address, which you excerpted in Post #2241:
"It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."
FALSE - The federal government is a creature of the States, and can be 'terminated' by the States under the specific written terms of Article V of the Constitution.
"One party to a [constitutional] contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all [parties] to lawfully rescind it?"
FALSE - again, as Article V notes, only "three fourths" of the States would be required to rescind the Constitution completely, via the amendment process specified.
Obviously, your understanding of the Constitution is just as flawed as was Mr. Lincoln's.
Well -- is the Constitution a contract? ... Many in 1860 understood that secession meant breaking the Constitutional contract...
Sorry, BloJo, but that (once again) fails to satisfy your Post #2233 requirement for documentation dating from "1788." As noted above, you're a 'do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do' hypocrite.
Robert E. Lee... Alexander Stephens... the Maryland legislature, on April 26, 1861... Stephen Douglas... Jefferson Davis himself...
So, in your Post #2233 you advise us that the public comments of Jefferson and Madison (and the entire Bill of Rights, for that matter), published within three years of ratification, are irrelevant because "any quotes from the period AFTER ratification in 1788 are likely just then-current political statements, and not necessarily the Founders' 'original intent.' " (Gosh, you must believe that Madison & Jefferson were complete scoundrels, or subject to dementia, to make such a claim! ;>)
But here, in your Post #2249, you quote multiple sources from SEVEN DECADES OR MORE AFTER ratification - while still discounting Jefferson and Madison.
Hypocrite.
And so the South made its "appeal to arms," and invoked "the blessing of Providence."
But the South's "appeals" and "invocations" were all rejected.
In other words, you suggest that 'might makes right' - a suitable epitaph to your irrational, revisionist 'argument,' if there ever was one...
;>)