[aruanan]

It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself! Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a Government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government.

And yet we have such a government.

[conimbricenses]

"By the principles of the American revolution, arbitrary power may and ought to be resisted even by arms if necessary- The time may come when it shall be the duty of a State, in order to preserve itself from the oppression of the general government, to have recourse to the sword." - Luther Martin, Delegate from Maryland, 1788

[arrogantsob]

Don’t let your rhetoric run away with you. We have yet to have such a government.

You have to recall the youth of our nation. There are going to be many things which happen that are bad or distasteful but that will be corrected in the fullness of time. Our government reflects what the People want and only when those people are properly educated will it be corrected.

We are not where we are because of some massive conspiracy.