Sorry, to follow you over to a different thread. Here, however, it does seem that you agree with me. It must just be some terms I used that caused the misunderstanding. Then again, I didn't spend some 30 posts clarifying our differences as I had with non-sequitur.
“Sorry, to follow you over to a different thread.”
I can’t complain. If you look carefully at the other thread you’ll see that I did kind of the same thing.
“Here, however, it does seem that you agree with me.”
I don’t recall ever arguing that there was no right at all to secede, although I may have argued that some stated reason or the other was not sufficient grounds.
My major gripe on secession is with the assertion that the non-seceding States have no right at all, ever, to try and hold the seceding States to the Compact.
To me that’s like saying one party to a contract has no right at all, ever, to try and hold another party to the terms of the contract. If that’s true why have contracts? What’s the point in having contracts, agreements, compacts, etc. without the possibility of holding someone to them? And if you can’t have contracts, agreements, compacts etc. to which adherence is dependable, what kind of society do you get?
I do acknowledge that there may be circumstances in which the non-seceding States do not have the right to try and hold the seceding States to the Compact.
Killing two posts with one response, I agree with your post 69 as to “all kinds of thorns, brambles and pitfalls in which one can get lost.”