If you believe the Constitution is a mere contract your further reasoning will be flawed.
But even if it were a mere contract then secession was even less defensible since it would amount to a unilateral abrogation of that "contract."
So either way the Slavers were in the wrong.
LOL! Like it or not, that's exactly what it was. Brilliantly written by extraordinary men, but a contract nonetheless.
-------------
But even if it were a mere contract then secession was even less defensible since it would amount to a unilateral abrogation of that "contract."
The entire purpose of a contract is to state the terms of the contract IN the contract its self.
It's called "full disclosure".
If you try to add to or subtract anything to a contract that isn't expressly there after it's been agreed to and signed, it's a breach of contract.
Please show me the part of the Constitution that expressly forbids a state to secede.
-------------
So either way the Slavers were in the wrong.
Amazing how the moral issue of slavery is immediately injected into a LEGAL discussion when the opposition lacks any rational or Constitutional argument.