[Sherman Logan]

If you have a reference for this claim, I’d like to see it.

I’ve read Grant’s Memoirs. While he recognizes in it the right of any people to revolution, that is very different from claiming a legal right to secession. AFAIK, he didn’t make any such concession.

He certainly might have made some comment to this effect in earlier life, but I haven’t seen it.

Also, while one may in theory claim a state has a “right” to secede, it’s difficult to see how that extends to it having a “right” to wage war on the Union without retaliation.

[central_va]

The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.

U. S. Grant

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“If you have a reference for this claim, I’d like to see it.”

Ya know Sherm I’ve observed that you seem a little short on references.

Why don’t you splain to us one more time how it was OK that Grant and his wife owned slaves but the North had to invade and ravage the South over it?

I think that we would need a lot of evidence for that one don’t you?

Not to mention what evidence is there that the South is compelled to put up statues of invaders that tried to destroy one half of their own country? I’d like to see some legal evidence of it.

If there isn’t any then gee I don’t think we will. :-)